https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf


Like I said though, models are always flawed. You'd have to be a fool to believe that only 200k would die though like Trump and his doctors are saying. The lowest I can imagine is 800k, and that's being very conservative. Most epidemiologists thinks the 200k number sounds insane.

Great, thank you.

So, a few problems I find in your article.

First, the sourced IFR doesn't have much background into their study numbers to determine IFR (CFR is easy to understand because they are cases you see, IFR includes those that never get tested).

Second, all of the information sourced comes from China which is not reliable.

Lastly, the information in the article is from 3/13/2020.

There is much more relevant information to use now, sourced from multiple countries. Better yet it's updated as of 4/07/2020...
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

Great, thank you.

So, a few problems I find in your article.

First, the sourced IFR doesn't have much background into their study numbers to determine IFR (CFR is easy to understand because they are cases you see, IFR includes those that never get tested).

Second, all of the information sourced comes from China which is not reliable.

Lastly, the information in the article is from 3/13/2020.

There is much more relevant information to use now, sourced from multiple countries. Better yet it's updated as of 4/07/2020...
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

The thing is I don't care. You can pick whatever model you want. If 10 million people got infected in the next 24 months,about 100K would die. That's only 3.125% of the population. Do you think only 3.125% or 6.25% is going to stop an infected person from spreading the virus. The only reason the numbers are going down is people are staying indoors. What happens when they come out and you have asymptomatic carriers showing up. It's common sense what's going to happen.

Nobody is "picking" a model. You used an outdated one. And no, the reason the numbers are going down is NOT because of people staying indoors. They were making projections, factoring that in, of how many would be infected and how many would die, based on nothing more than a glorified guess of how many people had come into contact with the virus before the stay at home orders started. They way overestimated the extent of how much it had already spread. And as such, they have cut their numbers in half.

You don't get to go back in time and use the doomsday models that fit your narrative. THAT is "picking" a model.

And how are asymptomatic carriers going to spread anything AFTER the stay at home is over? Even though I highly object to the decision to close everything, due to the massive economic impact, isn't the point of a quarantine supposed to be to let whoever has the virus either get well from home, or in the hospital, while everyone else who isn't sick doesn't get exposed? I don't see how people are going to emerge in great numbers carrying the virus.

My thing is that we're already seeing that most people who get the virus are going to be able to beat it without any problem. So if anyone is going to be quarantined, it should be the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Let everyone else build the "herd immunity" while keeping the economy flowing. But I think even FORCING at risk people to quarantine is a violation of constitutional rights. Let them choose what risks they want to take.

The only reason I picked the models was to show to what extent the virus would spread. The numbers I used didn't match either model. If you think the virus is going to die off in the spring, you are making a completely false assumption. The rate of transfer is much too high, this isn't influenza which has a sub 1 R0. The whole handwashing, surface cleaning,etc...those aren't even close to being primary infection pathways...there's not even a lot of evidence to suggest those are true pathways to infection.People are actually cleaning to a great extent, which probably doesn't even help a whole lot. It's mainly just breathing air. It will still be transferred via droplets. The humidity and heat may slow down aerosolized transfer quite a bit. The rate of transfer will still be high(higher than 1.5 at the very least). The summer months aren't going to stop air to air contact. I'm not overthinking ****, you are under thinking. The CDC has little to no input on what the government is saying right now, if they did they would be saying something completely different. They've pretty much been sidelined throughout the entire process.

I'm going to remember this thread though so I can come back to it later on.

I don't know, for the life of me, why any of us are bothering to talk to you, but here I go again: You sit there and ADMIT that you picked a model, even though it was brought to your attention multiple times that the model you used was outdated and long since proven inaccurate... And you say "The only reason I picked the models was to show to what extent the virus would spread".

Everything you said from that point was complete rubbish. You can't use a model, that was PROVEN to be faulty, and say "well, I was just using that to show how it would spread". Are you kidding me? How stupid do you think I am? Your whole premise is based on a broken model, and you think you can just put it back together and make it show something accurate? You have no idea what you're even saying, and neither do any of the rest of us, because you're literally just making things up as you go.

And I did not say the virus would be gone by the spring. It already is spring, first of all. I said that as the spring "settles in" the virus will "keep dying", as it has begun to do. I said it might be years before it's 100% gone. The point was that it will be easily manageable once we've come to the end of this cycle in the next couple of months. And that is good enough. The flu comes back every year. No one claims at the end of a flu season that kills between 60-80 thousand people that the virus will not return the next year, and yet we've always kept our normal way of life going.

Your doomsday rhetoric would have us all believe that we can NEVER leave our homes again, because it will just come back. Why? Why would it come back, based on people coming out of their homes, who presumably will not have the virus, considering we're all being quarantined? You make no sense.

This virus lasts on surfaces, supposedly, a little longer than the flu. Not weeks, or months, or years longer. The heat will kill it. The vast majority of it. And the only way for it to get airborne is for people to cough and sneeze it into the air. But there won't be very many carriers within the next couple of months. I know you would have us believe that you are some kind of viral expert, but you clearly are not. And neither am I, by the way. I just have a little common sense, and I don't rely on faulty models to make an argument.

The model that I used wasn't outdated, Ferguson still stands by it completely if lockdown is lifted. If anything he has become even more pessimistic if social distancing doesn't continue cause he thinks the virus is a bit more transmissible.

Surfaces aren't even a primary source of spread, people are. The virus on surfaces or even if it's on your hands is very unlikely to infect you. It is mainly person to person transmission through air. The humidity can't kill something that is inside of someone else. A person can go a day or two and test negative and still have the virus because the virus load in their nasal passages is too low to detect. After this wave, we'll get imported cases and the whole process will begin again. You act as if there is no historical precedent for this. It's doing what most influenza pandemics have done, gone and come in waves. The Lancet study pretty much confirms this isn't over and is pretty much impossible to stop multiple waves.

Also, I don't want people to stay in their homes. The economy would fall apart. There has to be some sort of plan. We don't have a plan. You can either send the younger people back into the work force, get them infected... maybe like 20-30% which would slow down the rate of transmission quite substantially. Or you can isolation dance and go in and out of lockdown for a long period of time. We haven't even had a significant portion of our population get the virus. Why would it be more manageable the second time? Because of the heat? There have been several coronaviruses that have thrived in the heat (Mers, Sars). You are making assumptions on things that historical data doesn't back up. When a virus is transmissible from person to person through the air, it makes it very hard for the heat and humidity to stop it. We don't have to have 1.6 million people die, but if we prematurely declare victory and everyone goes out and doesn't give a **** we're going to end up with a lot of infections.

Great, thank you.

So, a few problems I find in your article.

First, the sourced IFR doesn't have much background into their study numbers to determine IFR (CFR is easy to understand because they are cases you see, IFR includes those that never get tested).

Second, all of the information sourced comes from China which is not reliable.

Lastly, the information in the article is from 3/13/2020.

There is much more relevant information to use now, sourced from multiple countries. Better yet it's updated as of 4/07/2020...
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global...atality-rates/

Also the CEBM is based on the Oxford model, which assumes that a large chunk of the population has already been infected and that R0 is incredibly hight. They are probably greatly underestimating the IFR. Several other papers put it closer to 1%. Cruise ship studies disagree with this. Also, there have been a couple of towns in Italy that have been perfect testing scenarios. They all point to somewhere between .7 and 1.3 IFR.