ghost of miles

COVID-19 2.0: No Politics edition

566 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

That’s a real piss poor argument. By your logic massive resources should be used towards all endeavors no matter their feasibility. If I keep trying to throw rocks over the Atlantic Ocean every day maybe one day my arm will become strong enough to do it. 

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

That’s a real piss poor argument. By your logic massive resources should be used towards all endeavors no matter their feasibility. If I keep trying to throw rocks over the Atlantic Ocean every day maybe one day my arm will become strong enough to do it. 

Maybe you have a point. But standing on the shore saying, "Shit, I'll never do it, so why try", is definitely not a good answer either. Maybe if you thought outside the box, as Jim said, and thought, "Hey, maybe if I start building a bridge, I'll get close enough to that other shore and then I'll be able to throw that rock across".

Humans from every country, every religion, every race should be more concerned about renewable energy. Our current energy sources are not infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bresna said:

Humans from every country, every religion, every race should be more concerned about renewable energy. Our current energy sources are not infinite.

And one way to save energy is redirect what we use it for.  Telecommuting reduces gasoline consumption, but increases demand on servers and such. So...try washing dishes by hand and hanging laundry out to dry, when possible. Yes, we have a clothesline in our back yard, and no, we don't use it nearly as often as we could/should.

There's probably literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of little lifestyle tweaks than if done to scale would redirect energy consumption.

At this point - no, there's not one BIG BANG moment around the corner that's going to end our dependence on fossil fuels. But out current behavioral patterns are only making The Wall Of Impossibility higher, not lower. It's not a question of "going green" nearly as much as it is one of maximizing personal efficiencies relative to the collective availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jcam_44 said:

That’s a real piss poor argument. By your logic massive resources should be used towards all endeavors no matter their feasibility. If I keep trying to throw rocks over the Atlantic Ocean every day maybe one day my arm will become strong enough to do it. 

IIRC in the early '60s London bookmakers were giving 1000 to one odds that man wouldn't be on the moon within a decade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bresna said:

Maybe you have a point. But standing on the shore saying, "Shit, I'll never do it, so why try", is definitely not a good answer either. Maybe if you thought outside the box, as Jim said, and thought, "Hey, maybe if I start building a bridge, I'll get close enough to that other shore and then I'll be able to throw that rock across".

Humans from every country, every religion, every race should be more concerned about renewable energy. Our current energy sources are not infinite.

But then you're not throwing a rock from one side to the other. You've changed you goal to only reach the other side. 

50 minutes ago, JSngry said:

And one way to save energy is redirect what we use it for.  Telecommuting reduces gasoline consumption, but increases demand on servers and such. So...try washing dishes by hand and hanging laundry out to dry, when possible. Yes, we have a clothesline in our back yard, and no, we don't use it nearly as often as we could/should.

There's probably literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of little lifestyle tweaks than if done to scale would redirect energy consumption.

At this point - no, there's not one BIG BANG moment around the corner that's going to end our dependence on fossil fuels. But out current behavioral patterns are only making The Wall Of Impossibility higher, not lower. It's not a question of "going green" nearly as much as it is one of maximizing personal efficiencies relative to the collective availability.

So we have gone from research and development on alternate energy sources to changing our consumption habits. If we continuously change the goal we will continuous be chasing something different. 

 

 

My only point is, its much easier to want renewable energy than actually practical give energy needs. Solar and wind are cheaper to build and maintain, but are as useful when their energy source is not predictable. Most if not all major utilities are utilizing them in some capacity and are attempting to increase as they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jcam_44 said:

So we have gone from research and development on alternate energy sources to changing our consumption habits. If we continuously change the goal we will continuous be chasing something different. 

Or maybe let's see if we can't simultaneously pursue multiple micro-goals in pursuit of a larger macro-goal! Let's look at redefining both consumption demand and demand delivery!

Short attention span is not an excuse. If computers can multi-task and parallel-process, surely humans can as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 8:57 PM, jcam_44 said:

That’s a real piss poor argument. By your logic massive resources should be used towards all endeavors no matter their feasibility. If I keep trying to throw rocks over the Atlantic Ocean every day maybe one day my arm will become strong enough to do it. 

IIRC in the early '60s London bookmakers were giving 1000 to one odds that man wouldn't be on the moon within a decade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, medjuck said:

IIRC in the early '60s London bookmakers were giving 1000 to one odds that man wouldn't be on the moon within a decade. 

Saw your response the first time, just felt it was unrelated and a response unnecessary. But sure you're right, everything should be pursued forever with all effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political diversions removed from thread rather than closing it.

Let's see how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One problem right now as far as data and what's likely to happen (especially now that numerous states are attempting some sort of phased reopening) is that the IHME model being used by the White House task force and many media outlets is, as Josh Marshall notes, seriously out of whack... and that's measuring it against the official COVID-19 death toll so far (which is almost certainly an undercount, especially when one looks at the "excess deaths" rate in the U.S. for the past few weeks):

There is a common aphorism in the world of statistics: ‘All models are wrong but some are useful.’ It captures an important point: Models aren’t predictions as a psychic might make so much as attempts to organize data and think critically about uncertainty. The COVID19 model out of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington has become something of a canonical model for the COVID19 epidemic in the United States, in part because it appears to have been adopted by the White House task force. I wanted to take a moment to look at just how far out of line it has become even with current data.

The models estimates have bounced around a fair amount. It started high, jumped back considerably and has crept back up since. This isn’t a sign of a problem in itself. It is an attempt to model the course of a disease that didn’t exist six months ago. As we proceed it is supplemented with new data.

But consider these numbers. The latest estimate, released on April 29th projected 72,433 cumulative deaths through August 4th – a range from 59,343 to 114,228. But as of this morning the Johns Hopkins University data tracker shows that 63,019 people have already died. And if we look at the data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project 13,252 of those have died (or at least been reported) in the last seven days.

If we assumed the unlikely hypothetical that the average death toll in the first half of May were one half what it was in the last 7 days of April, the United States would blow through the IHME total on May 10th, almost three months before the model says it should.

I’m no statistician but this is seriously out of whack and what is striking to me is that the latest projections came out only two days ago, when these numbers were as obviously out of whack as they are this morning.

My point here isn’t to criticize. These numbers speak for themselves. But to the extent we’re going to have a model that at least organizes our thinking about the range of possibilities we need either a new model or a refactored one.

 

I mean, accurate data models are just *one* of the issues we're struggling with right now.  But we're well on pace to reach that new IHME April 29th projection three months ahead of schedule, as Marshall notes--May 10th is in fact a pretty optimistic calculation.  The Worldometer Coronavirus tracker shows U.S. deaths as of this moment at 64,503.  

And when you look at the daily data for new infections and deaths, we're basically plateauing--that's with extreme lockdown measures in effect for much of the country.  As Jeremy Konyndyk runs it down in this Twitter thread, we're looking at replicating March's death toll for the next few months--basically the equivalent of a Vietnam War fatality total every single month--unless a lot of things happen that right now don't seem likely to happen.

Edited by ghost of miles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ghost of miles said:

--basically the equivalent of a Vietnam War fatality total every single month--

Well, at least this time there won't be a Woodstock to go with it! :g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, ghost of miles said:

One problem right now as far as data and what's likely to happen (especially now that numerous states are attempting some sort of phased reopening) is that the IHME model being used by the White House task force and many media outlets is, as Josh Marshall notes, seriously out of whack... and that's measuring it against the official COVID-19 death toll so far (which is almost certainly an undercount, especially when one looks at the "excess deaths" rate in the U.S. for the past few weeks):

There is a common aphorism in the world of statistics: ‘All models are wrong but some are useful.’ It captures an important point: Models aren’t predictions as a psychic might make so much as attempts to organize data and think critically about uncertainty. The COVID19 model out of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington has become something of a canonical model for the COVID19 epidemic in the United States, in part because it appears to have been adopted by the White House task force. I wanted to take a moment to look at just how far out of line it has become even with current data.

The models estimates have bounced around a fair amount. It started high, jumped back considerably and has crept back up since. This isn’t a sign of a problem in itself. It is an attempt to model the course of a disease that didn’t exist six months ago. As we proceed it is supplemented with new data.

But consider these numbers. The latest estimate, released on April 29th projected 72,433 cumulative deaths through August 4th – a range from 59,343 to 114,228. But as of this morning the Johns Hopkins University data tracker shows that 63,019 people have already died. And if we look at the data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project 13,252 of those have died (or at least been reported) in the last seven days.

If we assumed the unlikely hypothetical that the average death toll in the first half of May were one half what it was in the last 7 days of April, the United States would blow through the IHME total on May 10th, almost three months before the model says it should.

I’m no statistician but this is seriously out of whack and what is striking to me is that the latest projections came out only two days ago, when these numbers were as obviously out of whack as they are this morning.

My point here isn’t to criticize. These numbers speak for themselves. But to the extent we’re going to have a model that at least organizes our thinking about the range of possibilities we need either a new model or a refactored one.

 

I mean, accurate data models are just *one* of the issues we're struggling with right now.  But we're well on pace to reach that new IHME April 29th projection three months ahead of schedule, as Marshall notes--May 10th is in fact a pretty optimistic calculation.  The Worldometer Coronavirus tracker shows U.S. deaths as of this moment at 64,503.  

And when you look at the daily data for new infections and deaths, we're basically plateauing--that's with extreme lockdown measures in effect for much of the country.  As Jeremy Konyndyk runs it down in this Twitter thread, we're looking at replicating March's death toll for the next few months--basically the equivalent of a Vietnam War fatality total every single month--unless a lot of things happen that right now don't seem likely to happen.

Is it accurate to assume death tolls will continue to climb at such high rates? At what point do we acknowledge most people will be okay?

It cannot be disputed that some people have it or had it and never knew, while for others it was just a mild sickness. Did I get it? I have no idea, but if I did, than I automatically gave it to my wife and she too showed no symptoms and never got sick.

That worldometer map indicates 50,000 patients worldwide are at a serious level, and shows 98% mild. Yes, it's sad to see people died but will we ever know how many died actually from Covid-19? Is the death toll under counted or has it been over counted? Covid-19 should go on the death certificate right along congestive heart failure, but what will we recognize as the cause now? It might be true some deaths were not reported when this whole mess started for lack of understanding, but there is certainly no reason they would not be counted now, at least not here. China on the other hand.

The navy hospital ship left NYC, the FEMA 2500 bed hospital at Javitz didn't see all that many people and is set to close. With all the elective surgeries cancelled and people staying home, hospitals in this country are empty.

How many deaths outside of Covid19 because people skipped appointments or surgeries, or just could not see their physicians?

I understand this may be with us for a while. Hell, maybe it will be a year or two, or more as some believe. We see new cases being reported every day. Is anyone tracking whether or not these cases involve people that were observing stay at home orders, working from home or not at all or can every new case be attributed to people out and about everyday? Because, here is a news flash, going to the grocery store, riding your bike, grabbing take out, getting your mail and having home improvements done, is not the same as a real quarantine. So, has any of this shutdown actually helped on any meaningful level? Besides of course, some reduction in traffic.

I wonder, what do the models show for increases in domestic violence and child abuse while shit is all closed up and we are being asked to stay home? How about just the mental well being of people in general? How about business owners that may not be able to re-open, ever?

There is big $ to be made. I have faith the pharmaceutical companies and science will figure out how to get all the money.

P.S. I wouldn't put too much trust in Konyndyk's opinions, considering he is associated with WHO.

 

 

 

Edited by catesta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, catesta said:

Is it accurate to assume death tolls will continue to climb at such high rates? At what point do we acknowledge most people will be okay?

It cannot be disputed that some people have it or had it and never knew, while for others it was just a mild sickness. Did I get it? I have no idea, but if I did, than I automatically gave it to my wife and she too showed no symptoms and never got sick.

That worldometer map indicates 50,000 patients worldwide are at a serious level, and shows 98% mild. Yes, it's sad to see people died but will we ever know how many died actually from Covid-19? Is the death toll under counted or has it been over counted? Covid-19 should go on the death certificate right along congestive heart failure, but what will we recognize as the cause now? It might be true some deaths were not reported when this whole mess started for lack of understanding, but there is certainly no reason they would not be counted now, at least not here. China on the other hand.

The navy hospital ship left NYC, the FEMA 2500 bed hospital at Javitz didn't see all that many people and is set to close. With all the elective surgeries cancelled and people staying home, hospitals in this country are empty.

How many deaths outside of Covid19 because people skipped appointments or surgeries, or just could not see their physicians?

I understand this may be with us for a while. Hell, maybe it will be a year or two, or more as some believe. We see new cases being reported every day. Is anyone tracking whether or not these cases involve people that were observing stay at home orders, working from home or not at all or can every new case be attributed to people out and about everyday? Because, here is a news flash, going to the grocery store, riding your bike, grabbing take out, getting your mail and having home improvements done, is not the same as a real quarantine. So, has any of this shutdown actually helped on any meaningful level? Besides of course, some reduction in traffic.

I wonder, what do the models show for increases in domestic violence and child abuse while shit is all closed up and we are being asked to stay home? How about just the mental well being of people in general? How about business owners that may not be able to re-open, ever?

There is big $ to be made. I have faith the pharmaceutical companies and science will figure out how to get all the money.

P.S. I wouldn't put too much trust in Konyndyk's opinions, considering he is associated with WHO.

 

 

 

And your point is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, catesta said:

Is it accurate to assume death tolls will continue to climb at such high rates? At what point do we acknowledge most people will be okay?

It cannot be disputed that some people have it or had it and never knew, while for others it was just a mild sickness. Did I get it? I have no idea, but if I did, than I automatically gave it to my wife and she too showed no symptoms and never got sick.

That worldometer map indicates 50,000 patients worldwide are at a serious level, and shows 98% mild. Yes, it's sad to see people died but will we ever know how many died actually from Covid-19? Is the death toll under counted or has it been over counted? Covid-19 should go on the death certificate right along congestive heart failure, but what will we recognize as the cause now? It might be true some deaths were not reported when this whole mess started for lack of understanding, but there is certainly no reason they would not be counted now, at least not here. China on the other hand.

The navy hospital ship left NYC, the FEMA 2500 bed hospital at Javitz didn't see all that many people and is set to close. With all the elective surgeries cancelled and people staying home, hospitals in this country are empty.

How many deaths outside of Covid19 because people skipped appointments or surgeries, or just could not see their physicians?

I understand this may be with us for a while. Hell, maybe it will be a year or two, or more as some believe. We see new cases being reported every day. Is anyone tracking whether or not these cases involve people that were observing stay at home orders, working from home or not at all or can every new case be attributed to people out and about everyday? Because, here is a news flash, going to the grocery store, riding your bike, grabbing take out, getting your mail and having home improvements done, is not the same as a real quarantine. So, has any of this shutdown actually helped on any meaningful level? Besides of course, some reduction in traffic.

I wonder, what do the models show for increases in domestic violence and child abuse while shit is all closed up and we are being asked to stay home? How about just the mental well being of people in general? How about business owners that may not be able to re-open, ever?

There is big $ to be made. I have faith the pharmaceutical companies and science will figure out how to get all the money.

P.S. I wouldn't put too much trust in Konyndyk's opinions, considering he is associated with WHO.

 

 

 

What's wrong with WHO?  Or have you been imbibing the Kool-Aid that certain leadership has been distributing?  I mean, c'mon.  (Because I really doubt that you have, but otherwise I can't fathom that statement.)  Anyway, if you want to dispute the statistics and the analysis that Konyndyk puts forth in that thread, that's one thing.  To disparage him because of an association with WHO doesn't really do an iota to invalidate the concerns he's laying out there.

Marshall's saying that if we continue to plateau, as we seem to be doing now, that yes, we're looking at a continuing high monthly death rate--and one that could increase as the country moves to reopen. But even if it doesn't increase, holy crap, 60,000 deaths a month for the next few months?!  (I'm not advocating for a continuing strict lockdown, btw... that's not the point of my prior post.  I *am* advocating for a realistic grasp of the shit we're dealing with, and frankly that shit is far worse because of the colossal failure of leadership we've seen at various levels, but most especially at the federal, and the woeful state we find ourselves in for moving forward.)  You've lived in NYC and I've just visited there a few times in the past several years, but the city's already moving towards 20,000 dead, and not just elderly folk in nursing homes, but transit workers, health-care workers, etc.  You can't tell me that things wouldn't be far worse and the death/infection toll much higher and the medical system overwhelmed if the city hadn't gone on lockdown.  It's NYC, for crissake--in normal times everybody's packed together on the subways, indoor and outdoor venues... this virus spreads so easily already.  I haven't seen any models for what March and April would have looked like without a lockdown, so it's hard to say how bad it would have been.  As it is it's bad enough.  I mean, bodies are literally piling up in NYC right now.  And God help the rural areas across America, where coronavirus cases are increasing, often in places where there are no longer any hospitals.  

My statement about undercounting was not made to connote conspiratorial intent (though since I posted, this story popped up, which does seem like a move to control the data we're getting out of one state).  Although I'd agree that China almost certainly under-reported their death figures.  I'm alluding to the low ratio of testing we're still at overall in the U.S., the excess death rate increase that suggests the toll could be twice as high as the official figure, etc, and the issues that this New York Times article addresses (April 5, less than 4 weeks ago, and the U.S. death count hadn't hit 10,000 yet--seems like long ago at this point).  But let's just push all those issues to the side and assume that the official count is pretty much accurate.  It's 65,598 in the U.S. now... that's 1400 more deaths from COVID-19 reported just in the two hours since I put up my post.  And again, that's with a lot of restrictions still in place and most people practicing some form of social distancing.  I really would be interested to see a model that projected what the toll might be without all the things that have been done to try to keep this plague in check.  As it is, Marshall's completely right to say that the IMHE model is becoming a bit of a joke.  I share his perplexity at their having issued a projection just two days ago that's so clearly out of line with the day-to-day data... early August?!  We're going to hit that mark a week from now or less.

Everybody wants the economy to resume some sort of function again that will put us on the path to some sort of recovery.  I'm unaware of a single expert, politician, commentator, or anybody else who doesn't want that (unless again you're drinking the Kool-Aid that a certain network and certain officials of influence are spewing out there, and that is some highly toxic shit, my friend).  In fact, it's precisely the fear of this thing getting even worse and wreaking more havoc of all kinds that's making some urge that we proceed with caution.  Intensive testing, contact tracing, all kinds of things to be done (and Konyndyk spells them out iirc in that thread) to make it less likely that lifting restrictions will come back to bite us in the ass, hard.  In the meantime, there seem to be some potentially favorable developments in the way of possible treatments and vaccines, which is what we really need to achieve the new normal, whatever and whenever that may be.  Like everybody else I have friends who've been hit hard economically by all of this, and I have two friends who nearly died from it (plus an elderly aunt who's tested positive but who's so far hanging in there), but who've now recovered.  (One of them lost her mother to it while she herself was in intensive care and on a ventilator.)  Another friend had to close his restaurant for good.  It's a terrible situation.  But I can't conceive of how much worse if would've been if we hadn't done (and continue to do, to one degree or another) what we're doing.  In fact, we should have done a lot more and done it a lot earlier, and things would almost certainly not gotten as bad as they have.  (And no, Sweden's not so hot either, despite the strange embrace of that country by a number of folks who normally disparage just about every approach to public life that a country like Sweden employs.) This is not just the flu.  Maybe in a few years it will be, once we have vaccines, proven treatments, etc.  In the meantime, we've got to be as smart and tough as we can be about dealing with it and figuring out how we move forward economically without screwing up all over again as we did in February and early March.  Too many people have already died.  We owe it to the transit workers, the nurses and doctors, the police officers and paramedics and all the others who've taken far more significant hits than the rest of us, that their deaths weren't in vain. 

Edited by ghost of miles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghost of miles said:

 I *am* advocating for a realistic grasp of the shit we're dealing with...

Well, another part of the reality might be that once we know who all has actually had it that statistically, the death rate per capita might actually go down as a % of infections. Numbers properly collected and crunched are funny that way.

And another thing I'm not seeing data on, at least not publicly, is what the %s are as far as severity of symptoms. So once again, it might be that the % of people what get "really sick" is not as high as we had feared. same thing with "kinda sick".

But we don't know. We just don't know. And we need to know, because this is the kind of shit you need to know in order to move forward in any even remotely sensible way.

This is a failure. This is America at its worst. This is Capitalism at its worst. This is just everything at its worst, the motherfucking HUBRIS of a species and a culture of that species that has lost all of its humility about what it can and can't do or should be able to do, because we're not looking at getting, never mind using, real, hard data. Objective data to use to take whatever comes out, agenda-neutral.

So we're left to roll the dice and play with perceptions and play "odds" we have no idea are anything other that :hope", And please remember that hope it not a strategy, it was true then, and it's just as true now.

What we DO know, unequivocally know, is that, yes, it's still out there, yes, you can get still it, and if you get it you might get really sick, and yes, you might even die. Past that, we know nothing because there's no coordinated effort being made to just get ALL that data and crunch ALL those numbers.

This is total bullshit, and if economies collapse, if families are destroyed, hey - too fucking bad. If small business are ruined, too bad. If arts and culture die, too bad. We are failing this test, and failure has consequences.

Sorry about that, but them's the rules of life. I don't make the rules. Hell, I've hard a hard enough time figuring them out.

Well, I do make one rule, sorta - I cleaned up one batch of political exchanges this morning, and not more than a few hours later, they start back up again. So - thread closed. Again.

Third time's a charm, maybe?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.