Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

US Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements.
Post Reply
Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:26 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
550k deaths were never expected in the UK. That was the projection based on no action at all. No social distancing, no school closures, nothing. I don't think anybody realistically expected that response, so it should be interpreted as a baseline, not an actual expectation.

The projections for the suppression techniques being implemented with R0 of 2.4 were 8-39k. With R0 of 2.6 it was 12-48k. So 20k falls squarely into that range. The recently linked article mentions an R0 of 3, so that might imply we should expect the lower end of those ranges.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
I disagree with your response but let's move on. Here's the article on current expectations:https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -predicts/

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.
Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don’t show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. “I don’t think that’s consistent with the observed data,” Ferguson told the committee.

User avatar
JAZZISCOOL
Posts: 717
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 11:49 am
Location: Colorado - 5,700 ft.

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by JAZZISCOOL » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:36 pm

I just want to send out a big thank you to all the medical professionals and anyone else who are on the front-line of this pandemic (e.g. grocery store workers, delivery people, etc.)! I know many probably feel the same way. :beer

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:26 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
550k deaths were never expected in the UK. That was the projection based on no action at all. No social distancing, no school closures, nothing. I don't think anybody realistically expected that response, so it should be interpreted as a baseline, not an actual expectation.

The projections for the suppression techniques being implemented with R0 of 2.4 were 8-39k. With R0 of 2.6 it was 12-48k. So 20k falls squarely into that range. The recently linked article mentions an R0 of 3, so that might imply we should expect the lower end of those ranges.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
I disagree with your response but let's move on. Here's the article on current expectations:https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -predicts/
I got the range directly from the Imperial College study. There's a chart on page 13 that lays it out. The numbers mentioned in the article are entirely inline with original projections based on the UK's response.

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.
Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don’t show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. “I don’t think that’s consistent with the observed data,” Ferguson told the committee.
You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is now unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Last edited by Cash is King on Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:40 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:26 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
550k deaths were never expected in the UK. That was the projection based on no action at all. No social distancing, no school closures, nothing. I don't think anybody realistically expected that response, so it should be interpreted as a baseline, not an actual expectation.

The projections for the suppression techniques being implemented with R0 of 2.4 were 8-39k. With R0 of 2.6 it was 12-48k. So 20k falls squarely into that range. The recently linked article mentions an R0 of 3, so that might imply we should expect the lower end of those ranges.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
I disagree with your response but let's move on. Here's the article on current expectations:https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -predicts/
I got the range directly from the Imperial College study. There's a chart on page 13 that lays it out. The numbers mentioned in the article are entirely inline with original projections based on the UK's response.

The bold part above is what I disagree with.

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.
Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don’t show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. “I don’t think that’s consistent with the observed data,” Ferguson told the committee.
You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is no unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Last edited by KyleAAA on Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:40 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:26 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
550k deaths were never expected in the UK. That was the projection based on no action at all. No social distancing, no school closures, nothing. I don't think anybody realistically expected that response, so it should be interpreted as a baseline, not an actual expectation.

The projections for the suppression techniques being implemented with R0 of 2.4 were 8-39k. With R0 of 2.6 it was 12-48k. So 20k falls squarely into that range. The recently linked article mentions an R0 of 3, so that might imply we should expect the lower end of those ranges.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
I disagree with your response but let's move on. Here's the article on current expectations:https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... -predicts/
I got the range directly from the Imperial College study. There's a chart on page 13 that lays it out. The numbers mentioned in the article are entirely inline with original projections based on the UK's response.

The bold part above is what I disagree with.
On page 13 of the original study linked above, the "Do Nothing" column is the only one with projections in the 500k deaths range.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

ThankYouJack
Posts: 3271
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by ThankYouJack » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:43 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
That's a pretty poor explanation. He must have gone into more detail right? Aren't you interested in more of the science behind it and what multiple, not just one scientist is saying?

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm


Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.
Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don’t show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. “I don’t think that’s consistent with the observed data,” Ferguson told the committee.
You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is no unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused

KlangFool
Posts: 15471
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KlangFool » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:47 pm

jharkin wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:28 pm
KlangFool wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:16 pm
And, the UK's approach is "do nothing" and "no testing". I would let you draw your own conclusion.

KlangFool
Where did you get that from? I have colleagues in the UK (Cambridge, England specifically) and I just spoke with one 3 hours ago. He is only allowed to leave his house 1 hour per day under the lockdown law right now. Only permissible reasons to leave are food shopping and light exercise in the local neighborhood.

Hardly "do nothing"
jharkin,

UK's lockdown started 3/23 = this week.

KlangFool

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm


I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.
Most importantly, it assumes that most people who contract the virus don’t show symptoms and that very few need to go to hospital. “I don’t think that’s consistent with the observed data,” Ferguson told the committee.
You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is no unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused
That's not what the study said:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
(a) Suppression. Here the aim is to reduce the reproduction number (the average number of
secondary cases each case generates), R, to below 1 and hence to reduce case numbers to low levels
or (as for SARS or Ebola) eliminate human-to-human transmission. The main challenge of this
approach is that NPIs (and drugs, if available) need to be maintained – at least intermittently - for as
long as the virus is circulating in the human population, or until a vaccine becomes available. In the
case of COVID-19, it will be at least a 12-18 months before a vaccine is available3
. Furthermore, there
is no guarantee that initial vaccines will have high efficacy.
He does mention that the original projections did not take into account an intensive test and contact trace strategy once the initial wave comes under control. That should significantly reduce the depth of suppression needed over the intermediate term. That's good news.
Last edited by KyleAAA on Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm

ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:43 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:29 pm
ThankYouJack wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:19 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
Who do you mean they are multiple epidemiologists now predicting less than 20k deaths in the UK? Also, do you know why he thinks half of the UK has already been infected?
I should have said the the author the behind the study of the Coronavirus. I don't but here's his explanation:" Essentially, what has happened is that estimates of the viruses transmissibility have increased – which implies that many more people have already gotten it than we realize – which in turn implies it is less dangerous".
That's a pretty poor explanation. He must have gone into more detail right? Aren't you interested in more of the science behind it and what multiple, not just one scientist is saying?
Are you asking me to assume? Do you have some additional data that says otherwise? Are you saying his estimate of less than 20,000 deaths is wrong? If so, how many deaths do you expect in the UK?

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:51 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:34 pm


The author of the study doesn't say that in either of the links posted. The person posting the summary appears to have added that interpretation, which I don't think Ferguson would agree with. In fact, he explicitly disagrees with it at the end of the first article.

You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is no unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused
That's not what the study said:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
It does. absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing –

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:53 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:51 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:38 pm


You may want to read the article I just posted. Ferguson gave evidence to the parliamentary today and he says death from the disease is no unlikely to exceed 20,000.
Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused
That's not what the study said:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
It does. absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing –
He goes in depth about exactly what he means by "intensive intervention package." It doesn't mean quarantine for 18 months. The chart on page 13 references those definitions.

Cash is King
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:04 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Cash is King » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:57 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:53 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:51 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:41 pm


Yes, I read the article. The projections from the original study published ALSO gave a range of 8-48k deaths if the recommended measures were enacted. Ferguson is basically saying "we recommended these actions, and now that they have been implemented, we estimate they will have the effect originally projected."
Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused
That's not what the study said:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
It does. absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing –
He goes in depth about exactly what he means by "intensive intervention package." It doesn't mean quarantine for 18 months. The chart on page 13 references those definitions.
Again, he mentions on page 14 the following:
To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more. Adaptive hospital surveillance-based triggers for switching on and off population-wide social distancing and school closure offer greater robustness to uncertainty than fixed duration interventions and can be adapted for regional use (e.g. at the state level in the US). Given local epidemics are not perfectly synchronised, local policies are also more efficient and can achieve comparable levels of suppression to national policies while being in force for a slightly smaller proportion of the time. However, we estimate that for a national GB policy, social distancing would need to be in force for at least 2/3 of the time (for R0=2.4, see Table 4) until a vaccine was available.

Let's move on so the thread can stay open.

hilink73
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by hilink73 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:06 pm

quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:30 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washing ... as-rating/
Overall, we rate the Washington Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency.
Do you have a less biased source to link to?
I don't think so.
He posted several of similar sources in this thread already.

And I still don't understand what these guys want to tell us except opposing to implement strict measures or telling us it's "just the flu" or arguing for the arguments sake.

folkher0
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by folkher0 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:13 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:00 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:54 am
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:46 am
folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:30 am
Ketawa wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:18 am


Providing some context, the comments speculate that it could be seasonal due to the changing weather, not because a new strain for which there is little immunity is prevalent every year like the flu.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... story.html

This is an article written by a well regarded epidemiologist with expertise in influenza. I know him personally and trust his assessment.

No crystal ball. Just a well written opinion from an expert.
No crystal ball is correct. It's an opinion piece. It's disappointing to see someone make claims of 1.7M hospitalizations in the US and 170,000 deaths and not provide any source data on how they arrived at those numbers. Magic 8 Ball?
The author does:

"The first pandemic wave might infect more than half the world’s population. It is not unreasonable to believe that 1 in 1,000 of those infected will die (since many infections will have mild or no symptoms, the death rate among identified cases will be far higher). Perhaps 10 times that number will be hospitalized. In the United States, this would translate to more than 1.7 million hospitalizations and 170,000 deaths over the course of the first wave."

The assumption is 50% infection rate, 0.1% death rate from those infections, and 1% hospitalization rate. Extrapolate that out to the population of the US to get the absolute hospitalization and death numbers.
No. Might, Perhaps, etc. is not facts. It's speculation.
I guess I will say again:

Not a crystal ball. Just a well written opinion by an expert who I know personally and whose assessment I trust.

That’s the best we can do in regards to projecting out more than a few weeks with a novel virus.

He could be wrong and probably is. No one knows the future with any certainty. But hoping for the best without consideration and planning for the worst is what got us into this mess in the first place.

In public health and medicine, I respect expertise and trust the people who I work with.

It’s the only way.

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:17 pm

hilink73 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:06 pm
quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:30 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washing ... as-rating/
Overall, we rate the Washington Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency.
Do you have a less biased source to link to?
I don't think so.
He posted several of similar sources in this thread already.

And I still don't understand what these guys want to tell us except opposing to implement strict measures or telling us it's "just the flu" or arguing for the arguments sake.
What did I miss here? When I click through the links above I get to "New Scientist" not "Washington Pundit".

According to the New Scientist article "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower. "
According to your media bias checker "Overall, we rate New Scientist Pro-Science and Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record."
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:24 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:57 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:53 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:51 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:49 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:45 pm


Ferguson now predicts that the epidemic in the U.K. will peak and subside within “two to three weeks” However,– last week he said 18+ months of quarantine would be necessary. :confused
That's not what the study said:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf
It does. absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing –
He goes in depth about exactly what he means by "intensive intervention package." It doesn't mean quarantine for 18 months. The chart on page 13 references those definitions.
Again, he mentions on page 14 the following:
To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more. Adaptive hospital surveillance-based triggers for switching on and off population-wide social distancing and school closure offer greater robustness to uncertainty than fixed duration interventions and can be adapted for regional use (e.g. at the state level in the US). Given local epidemics are not perfectly synchronised, local policies are also more efficient and can achieve comparable levels of suppression to national policies while being in force for a slightly smaller proportion of the time. However, we estimate that for a national GB policy, social distancing would need to be in force for at least 2/3 of the time (for R0=2.4, see Table 4) until a vaccine was available.

Let's move on so the thread can stay open.
Yeah, but what he means by policies isn't what you are implying. And additionally, "peak and start to subside in 3 weeks" doesn't imply there is no need to continue those policies. Nothing he is saying now contradicts anything said before.

quantAndHold
Posts: 4266
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by quantAndHold » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:33 pm

knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:17 pm
hilink73 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:06 pm
quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:30 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washing ... as-rating/
Overall, we rate the Washington Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency.
Do you have a less biased source to link to?
I don't think so.
He posted several of similar sources in this thread already.

And I still don't understand what these guys want to tell us except opposing to implement strict measures or telling us it's "just the flu" or arguing for the arguments sake.
What did I miss here? When I click through the links above I get to "New Scientist" not "Washington Pundit".

According to the New Scientist article "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower. "
According to your media bias checker "Overall, we rate New Scientist Pro-Science and Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record."
Threader.app, which is what the poster linked to, is Washington Pundit, a right wing conspiracy theory website. So I would assume they pick and choose their references to fit their political bias.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:44 pm

quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:33 pm
knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:17 pm
hilink73 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:06 pm
quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:30 pm
Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washing ... as-rating/
Overall, we rate the Washington Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, as well as a complete lack of transparency.
Do you have a less biased source to link to?
I don't think so.
He posted several of similar sources in this thread already.

And I still don't understand what these guys want to tell us except opposing to implement strict measures or telling us it's "just the flu" or arguing for the arguments sake.
What did I miss here? When I click through the links above I get to "New Scientist" not "Washington Pundit".

According to the New Scientist article "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower. "
According to your media bias checker "Overall, we rate New Scientist Pro-Science and Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record."
Threader.app, which is what the poster linked to, is Washington Pundit, a right wing conspiracy theory website. So I would assume they pick and choose their references to fit their political bias.
Ironically, that is a bit bias.
In any case, it is pretty easy to click through that "threader.app" post to the "new scientist" article referenced and read that.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm

knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:44 pm
quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:33 pm
knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:17 pm
hilink73 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:06 pm
quantAndHold wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:30 pm


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washing ... as-rating/


Do you have a less biased source to link to?
I don't think so.
He posted several of similar sources in this thread already.

And I still don't understand what these guys want to tell us except opposing to implement strict measures or telling us it's "just the flu" or arguing for the arguments sake.
What did I miss here? When I click through the links above I get to "New Scientist" not "Washington Pundit".

According to the New Scientist article "UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower. "
According to your media bias checker "Overall, we rate New Scientist Pro-Science and Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record."
Threader.app, which is what the poster linked to, is Washington Pundit, a right wing conspiracy theory website. So I would assume they pick and choose their references to fit their political bias.
Ironically, that is a bit bias.
In any case, it is pretty easy to click through that "threader.app" post to the "new scientist" article referenced and read that.
You are correct. The issue is that the "summary" provided in threader does not fairly represent the actual contents of the article. If one ignores the commentary and just read a the article, that's reasonable.

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:00 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm
You are correct. The issue is that the "summary" provided in threader does not fairly represent the actual contents of the article. If one ignores the commentary and just read a the article, that's reasonable.
In what way do you think the quote included above in this thread: "The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths." was misrepresented?
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:15 pm

knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:00 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm
You are correct. The issue is that the "summary" provided in threader does not fairly represent the actual contents of the article. If one ignores the commentary and just read a the article, that's reasonable.
In what way do you think the quote included above in this thread: "The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths." was misrepresented?
Because it was represented as a walk back of the initial model, when in fact it is in agreement with the original model. Dr Furguson is represented as having admitted he was wrong, which isn't the case. The articles themselves are fine, but the purported summaries of them in threader.app are inaccurate.

User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 8757
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by tadamsmar » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:19 pm

Cash is King wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:58 am
Another interesting read:https://threader.app/thread/1243133211011690499

The number of deaths are no longer expected to be around 500K in the UK. They are now expecting less than 20,000 which is less than the annual flu deaths.

:shock:
500K was the do nothing scenario. Some of the study scenarios had expected deaths below 20,000.

The UK did not follow the do nothing scenario. It seems that the study influenced UK policy.

Here is the study that is being misrepresented in the cited thread:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

The thread says that they underestimated the existing cases and overestimated the fatalities per case, but I cannot find where the study author said that, not sure where the thread author got that.

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:34 pm

KyleAAA wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:15 pm
Because it was represented as a walk back of the initial model, when in fact it is in agreement with the original model. Dr Furguson is represented as having admitted he was wrong, which isn't the case. The articles themselves are fine, but the purported summaries of them in threader.app are inaccurate.
AH, I see, thanks for the clarification! You take issue with "no longer to be expected to be around 500k" part not with the "expecting less than 20k" part.

I tend to "read for the bottom line" so I thought you took issue with the 20K part.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:38 pm

tadamsmar wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:19 pm
500K was the do nothing scenario. Some of the study scenarios had expected deaths below 20,000.

The UK did not follow the do nothing scenario. It seems that the study influenced UK policy.

Here is the study that is being misrepresented in the cited thread:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

The thread says that they underestimated the existing cases and overestimated the fatalities per case, but I cannot find where the study author said that, not sure where the thread author got that.
Yes the study is linked in the blog post too.

I think the underestimated point is in reference to this in the article?: "New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5"

I don't know about your state, but here in Michigan I think if we think we have it we are to just stay home, not to go out and get tested. So there are likely many, but an unknown amount, that have this or already had it and will never be "counted", thus making the illness look more fatal than it is by default.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

rkhusky
Posts: 8678
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by rkhusky » Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:48 pm

Always good to look at the assumptions of any study. Nice that the authors of the above study put them all into one paragraph:
We assumed an incubation period of 5.1 days9,10. Infectiousness is assumed to occur from 12 hours prior to the onset of symptoms for those that are symptomatic and from 4.6 days after infection in those that are asymptomatic with an infectiousness profile over time that results in a 6.5-day mean generation time. Based on fits to the early growth-rate of the epidemic in Wuhan10,11, we make a baseline assumption that R0=2.4 but examine values between 2.0 and 2.6. We assume that symptomatic individuals are 50% more infectious than asymptomatic individuals. Individual infectiousness is assumed to be variable, described by a gamma distribution with mean 1 and shape parameter [alpha]=0.25. On recovery from infection, individuals are assumed to be immune to re-infection in the short term. Evidence from the Flu Watch cohort study suggests that re-infection with the same strain of seasonal circulating coronavirus is highly unlikely in the same or following season (Prof Andrew Hayward, personal communication).

folkher0
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by folkher0 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:00 pm

knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:38 pm
tadamsmar wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:19 pm
500K was the do nothing scenario. Some of the study scenarios had expected deaths below 20,000.

The UK did not follow the do nothing scenario. It seems that the study influenced UK policy.

Here is the study that is being misrepresented in the cited thread:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

The thread says that they underestimated the existing cases and overestimated the fatalities per case, but I cannot find where the study author said that, not sure where the thread author got that.
Yes the study is linked in the blog post too.

I think the underestimated point is in reference to this in the article?: "New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5"

I don't know about your state, but here in Michigan I think if we think we have it we are to just stay home, not to go out and get tested. So there are likely many, but an unknown amount, that have this or already had it and will never be "counted", thus making the illness look more fatal than it is by default.
Once again, I will suggest that it’s not that useful to focus on the mortality rate associated with this virus. Whether it is 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% or 5%. These numbers will vary depending on local situations, hospital capacity and resources, age and health of the local population, etc. As you implied, we may never know the true number of infected at any time. As such it is very difficult and not that useful to give a precise estimate of mortality.

What makes this very different from anything we have seen before is that it is novel and we have no (acquired) immunity and it is spreading exponentially through a naive population at the speed of travel in the 21st century.

It is overwhelming health care systems and occupying resources that could normally be devoted to the usually assortment of problems (coronary artery and vascular disease, diabetes, cancer).

If you have any of these problems right now you are out of luck. If you get lucky and get care you are likely to be treated in an environment drowning in COVID patients.

You must be a Spartan. I’ve heard that two flagship hospital systems in the state are getting hit hard (Ford and Beaumont systems).
Last edited by folkher0 on Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KyleAAA
Posts: 8083
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by KyleAAA » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:05 pm

Here is the video of the relevant parliamentary testimony in question for those curious. You have to scroll down slightly to get to the video.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1243244086896873472

Unladen_Swallow
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Unladen_Swallow » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:11 pm

Many (including posters on this board) are doing their best to "ignore false treatments! There is no proof! Nothing is true unless Dr.Fauci approves it in 4 years." Like he is the only physician in the country or the world. Odd elevation of singular people to god status during a crisis...whatever.

Doctors worldwide are thankfully doing what's right despite it all. The physicians in my family (on two separate continents) have been using similar combinations to address the virus in their hospitals.

Watch "U.S. Doctors Speak Out About How They Are Using A Promising Drug Combo To Treat COVID-19" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/cp6cib258FE
Looks like many people on this board are uneducated about off label treatments. It is routine. It has been used twice on me for different illnesses, and has been life changing. My doctor shared ongoing research with me, and I agreed to try it. He didn't ask Dr.Faucis permission.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman

folkher0
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by folkher0 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:22 pm

Deleted. Double post. Dang iPhone
Last edited by folkher0 on Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

folkher0
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by folkher0 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:24 pm

Unladen_Swallow wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:11 pm
Many (including posters on this board) are doing their best to "ignore false treatments! There is no proof! Nothing is true unless Dr.Fauci approves it in 4 years." Like he is the only physician in the country or the world. Odd elevation of singular people to god status during a crisis...whatever.

Doctors worldwide are thankfully doing what's right despite it all. The physicians in my family (on two separate continents) have been using similar combinations to address the virus in their hospitals.

Watch "U.S. Doctors Speak Out About How They Are Using A Promising Drug Combo To Treat COVID-19" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/cp6cib258FE
Looks like many people on this board are uneducated about off label treatments. It is routine. It has been used twice on me for different illnesses, and has been life changing. My doctor shared ongoing research with me, and I agreed to try it. He didn't ask Dr.Faucis permission.
I too use these meds on my patients. Under the advice of infectious disease specialists. I will continue to do so if they recommend it.

We have not seen them work at all in our patients. Maybe others have better luck.

I will say again: it is naive to believe a zpac and a 50 year old malaria drug will solve this problem.

And (in my opinion) Dr. Oz is not a reliable source for medical information. He is maybe one notch above Gwenyth Paltrow.

mouses
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:24 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by mouses » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:34 pm

Is this thread accomplishing anything? Just asking. Endless arguments about currently unknowable things, with giant included posts. I'd like to see some discussion about the structure of society, as what the effect is of giantly more jobless claims than ever, Washington disbursing giant amounts of money (where is that coming from, what effect does it have on inflation or other things of significance). That's something at least some of the people here ought to be able to discuss.

And Dr. Oz as an expert, really, how low have we sunk.

Novine
Posts: 1228
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Novine » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:36 pm

folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:00 pm

You must be a Spartan. I’ve heard that two flagship hospital systems in the state are getting hit hard (Ford and Beaumont systems).
Hammered. But you'll get the naysayers who will come on here and say that their numbers prove it's not a big deal.

"Describing the novel coronavirus pandemic as a "biological tsunami," Beaumont Health President and CEO John Fox told the Free Press Wednesday that the hospital system is adding about 100 new patients per day who have COVID-19.

That pace has continued for the last three days.

"What we all need to remember is that we got our first patient two weeks ago," he said. "So this is coming on hard and fast. This is definitely a biological tsunami."

He said so far, the hospital has been able to keep up with the demand for ventilators, but the outbreak of this new virus also is taxing the hospital's capacity not only for equipment and beds but for trained medical staff who can care for the sick.

"In my lifetime, we've never had a pandemic like this," Fox said."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/health ... 081204002/

User avatar
JAZZISCOOL
Posts: 717
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 11:49 am
Location: Colorado - 5,700 ft.

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by JAZZISCOOL » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:43 pm

folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:24 pm
Unladen_Swallow wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:11 pm
Many (including posters on this board) are doing their best to "ignore false treatments! There is no proof! Nothing is true unless Dr.Fauci approves it in 4 years." Like he is the only physician in the country or the world. Odd elevation of singular people to god status during a crisis...whatever.

Doctors worldwide are thankfully doing what's right despite it all. The physicians in my family (on two separate continents) have been using similar combinations to address the virus in their hospitals.

Watch "U.S. Doctors Speak Out About How They Are Using A Promising Drug Combo To Treat COVID-19" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/cp6cib258FE
Looks like many people on this board are uneducated about off label treatments. It is routine. It has been used twice on me for different illnesses, and has been life changing. My doctor shared ongoing research with me, and I agreed to try it. He didn't ask Dr.Faucis permission.
I too use these meds on my patients. Under the advice of infectious disease specialists. I will continue to do so if they recommend it.

We have not seen them work at all in our patients. Maybe others have better luck.

I will say again: it is naive to believe a zpac and a 50 year old malaria drug will solve this problem.

And (in my opinion) Dr. Oz is not a reliable source for medical information. He is maybe one notch above Gwenyth Paltrow.
I remember hearing about some controversies Dr. Oz have been involved in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz ... _criticism

"Oz has faced criticism due to his tendency to feature non-scientific and pseudoscientific advice. He has been supportive of homeopathy,[39] and is a proponent of alternative medicine.[40]"

webbie90
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by webbie90 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:47 pm

According to worldometers, the US now has more total cases than China or Italy. Over 13,000 new cases, but 10 states haven't been tallied yet today.

njdealguy
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:15 am

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by njdealguy » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:47 pm

USA in first place now, ahead of China & Italy for Coronavirus cases

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 19196
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by VictoriaF » Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:50 pm

Is there a simple way to relate epidemiological statistics to individual statistics? So far, we've discussed percentages of:
- exposed people
- symptomatic people
- those needing ICU
- those needing ventilators
- those dying --
depending on the locality's place on the curve and the measures such as shelter in place.

But let's consider individuals:
- Alan is a physician at a major hospital. He sees dozens of patients many of whom test positive. His PEP is inadequate.
- Bob is a janitor in the same hospital as Alan.
- Cynthia takes a densely packed bus every day.
- David visits shops 2-3 times/week and occasionally bumps into other people. Otherwise, he stays at home.
- Eva visits shops once a week and maintains 6ft distance.
- Frank never leaves home, has everything delivered, and thoroughly disinfects it.

Clearly, A, B, C, D, E, and F have different probabilities of being exposed to a virus. Probabilities are decreasing from the highest for A to the lowest for F.

When they do catch a virus, they catch different quantities of viruses:
- For the same level of the hospital contamination, A is catching 100 viruses, but B is catching only 30 viruses.
- When they encounter the same carrier in a store, D is catching 10 viruses, but E is catching only 4 viruses.

In other words, some people are in a high-risk group where both the probability of exposure and the quantity of viruses are high. Other people are in intermediate and low risk groups.

1. For those of us who are not in medical profession and follow the guidance of shelter in place, is there much difference in risk between behaving like David vs. Eva?
2. Is Frank much safer than Eva?
3. If Eva occasionally catches 4 units of viruses, is her immune system more likely to fight it--and develop immunity--than if she were A or B?

Victoria
Last edited by VictoriaF on Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:07 pm, edited 7 times in total.
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

Unladen_Swallow
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Unladen_Swallow » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:01 pm

folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:24 pm
And (in my opinion) Dr. Oz is not a reliable source for medical information. He is maybe one notch above Gwenyth Paltrow.
This is a nonsensical statement. Oz is interviewing other physicians actually treating patients. His own qualification is irrelevant. Doctor Oz could be Gwyneth Paltrow for all I care, nothing changes about the testimony from the folks he is talking to.

If one is honest, they can review the testimony of 100s of physicians and Infectious Disease specialists from all over the world that are sharing their experiences. Directors of hospitals, research centers etc are being very candid. Or one could listen to sources that validate their personal biases.

People have beliefs they hold on to...in spite of everything. Because opening their mind could comprise some other politucal or other sacred cow.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman

halfnine
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by halfnine » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:03 pm

KlangFool wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:47 pm
jharkin wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:28 pm
KlangFool wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:16 pm
And, the UK's approach is "do nothing" and "no testing". I would let you draw your own conclusion.

KlangFool
Where did you get that from? I have colleagues in the UK (Cambridge, England specifically) and I just spoke with one 3 hours ago. He is only allowed to leave his house 1 hour per day under the lockdown law right now. Only permissible reasons to leave are food shopping and light exercise in the local neighborhood.

Hardly "do nothing"
jharkin,

UK's lockdown started 3/23 = this week.

KlangFool
I read the UK's approach a bit differently. At some point they recognized that at a certain quantity of infections testing would no longer be effective as they wouldn't be able to isolate individuals faster than the virus spread. They also came to a conclusion that flattening the curve was the next best approach. They realized that early lockdown would just elongate the whole process and that society as a whole would be less likely to tolerate the inconvenience. So, they waited until the last possible minute based on their modeling to prevent the curve from overwhelming healthcare capacity. In another few weeks we will know whether they got it right or wrong. I imagine there is a lot more to come that they have planned for but they aren't ready to tell the British people yet either.

folkher0
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by folkher0 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:10 pm

VictoriaF wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:50 pm
Is there a simple way to related epidemiological statistics to individual statistics? So far, we've discussed percentages of:
- exposed people
- symptomatic people
- those needing ICU
- those needing ventilators
- those dying --
depending on the locality's place on the curve and the measures such as business closing and shelter in place.

But let's consider several individuals:
- Alan is a physician at a major hospital. He sees dozens of patients many of whom test positive. His PEP is inadequate.
- Bob is a janitor in major hospital.
- Cynthia takes a densely packed subway every day.
- David visits shops every day and occasionally bumps into other people.
- Eva visits shops once a week and maintains 6ft distance.
- Frank never leaves home, has everything delivered, and thoroughly disinfects it.

Clearly, A, B, C, D, E, and F have different probabilities of being exposed to a virus. Probabilities are decreasing from the highest for A to the lowest for F.

When they do catch a virus, they catch different quantities of viruses:
For the same level of the hospital contamination, A is catching 100 viruses, but B is catching only 30 viruses.
When they encounter the same carrier in a store, D is catching 10 viruses, but E is catching only 4 viruses.

In other words, some people are in a high-risk group where both the probability of exposure and the quantity of viruses are high. Other people are in intermediate and low risk groups.

For those of us who are not in medical profession and follow the guidance of shelter in place, is there much difference in risk between behaving like David vs. Eva?
Is Frank much safer than Eva?
If Eva occasionally catches 4 units of viruses, is her immune system more likely to fight it--and develop immunity--than if she were working in a hospital with a frequent exposure to 100 units?

Victoria
These are great questions and difficult to answer. In short, in face of so many unknowns, I am striving, to the best of my ability, to be an Eva or a Frank which I am doing well this week. Last week I was Alan. So how do you tally up my risk?

As to the number of viral particles you need to be exposed to to develop the disease, I just don’t know.

What I can say is that you are unlikely to develop any immunity if you are exposed at such a low level that the virus has not infected you on some level. That level may be a point which you are asymptomatic, but can still spread the virus. To be sure, your test may still be negative because the test is not perfect and has a considerable amount of false negatives.

Further, it is very difficult for me to say with any authority what immunity to this virus means. Are you immune for life (like the measles)? Are you immune to a current strain which will likely be different at some point in the future (like the flu?). Is immunity essentially meaningless and the virus comes around again and again in a different form with varying amounts of virulence (the common cold)?

All unknowns.

That’s the best answer I can give. Maybe someone else can do better.

surfstar
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by surfstar » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:12 pm

njdealguy wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:47 pm
USA in first place now, ahead of China & Italy for Coronavirus cases
That was fast.
#1 with a bullet.

ThankYouJack
Posts: 3271
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by ThankYouJack » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:15 pm

mouses wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:34 pm
Is this thread accomplishing anything? Just asking. Endless arguments about currently unknowable things, with giant included posts. I'd like to see some discussion about the structure of society, as what the effect is of giantly more jobless claims than ever, Washington disbursing giant amounts of money (where is that coming from, what effect does it have on inflation or other things of significance). That's something at least some of the people here ought to be able to discuss.

And Dr. Oz as an expert, really, how low have we sunk.
I think the thread has been informative. I had similar questions about where the $2 trilllion is coming from. Planet money explains it here - https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/82178709 ... 00-000-000

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 19196
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by VictoriaF » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:16 pm

folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:10 pm
That’s the best answer I can give. Maybe someone else can do better.
While the answers may not be available, perhaps my questions would inspire someone to look into them.

Take care of yourself when you resume being Alan,

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

Irenaeus
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by Irenaeus » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:25 pm

The following article from 2018 is somewhat tangential or at least peripheral to this thread, but makes for interesting reading:

The Chinese Workers Who Assemble Designer Bags in Tuscany

Note that below the title of the linked piece is an audio version.

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:28 pm

folkher0 wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:10 pm

Further, it is very difficult for me to say with any authority what immunity to this virus means. Are you immune for life (like the measles)? Are you immune to a current strain which will likely be different at some point in the future (like the flu?). Is immunity essentially meaningless and the virus comes around again and again in a different form with varying amounts of virulence (the common cold)?
Is not the "coronavirus" the second most common reason for a "common cold"?

Seems to me we aren't eliminating coronavirus infections forever, we all have almost with certainty been infected with a strain of coronavirus before and we aren't immune to this strain.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

User avatar
knpstr
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:57 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by knpstr » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:30 pm

surfstar wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:12 pm
njdealguy wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:47 pm
USA in first place now, ahead of China & Italy for Coronavirus cases
That was fast.
#1 with a bullet.
but not #1 in deaths
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. -Marcus Aurelius

surfstar
Posts: 2063
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus

Post by surfstar » Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:33 pm

knpstr wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:30 pm
surfstar wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 4:12 pm
njdealguy wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 3:47 pm
USA in first place now, ahead of China & Italy for Coronavirus cases
That was fast.
#1 with a bullet.
but not #1 in deaths
Be patient.

Post Reply