Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

[mcski]

What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were postive, about 6.6%. Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.

From there, they scale up to the state level and claim 12% incidence statewide. The news story says it is using the same calculation, but it can't be—how did they get from 6.6% to 12%? Perhaps they estimating infected *ever* versus infected *currently*. It's not clear.

Using that 12% infected figure, and a known 1400 deaths in California, they assume 1400 out of 4.7 million have died. That gives them an infection fatality rate of 0.03%. That is, they think that if 10,000 are infected, 3 will die on average.

The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.

Estimating that fraction infected from patients at an urgent care facility is a bit like estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court. It's not a random sample, and it gives a highly biased estimate. Moreover the estimate does not pass even a basic plausibility check. In New York City, 12,067 people are known to have died from the virus, out of a population of 8.4 million. This is a rate of 0.14% of all people. Not just infected people. All people. That gives us a lower bound on the death rate in New York. Not an estimate, a lower bound. The death rate for infected people is obviously higher than 0.14%, because not everyone in New York has been infected. And yet that 0.14% lower bound is nearly *five times as high* as the 0.03% that the Bakerfield duo are claiming. They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number.

Thx for taking the time to write up that rebuttal, it’s appreciated.

Although, it does seem the prevailing attitude among many I know seems to be fuck it, it’s over. It was overblown and just the olds are at risk.

I am seriously starting to visualize how a society could actually collapse now.

[bodywhomper]

Thx for taking the time to write up that rebuttal, it’s appreciated.

X2

Thx!

[markb]

What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were postive, about 6.6%. Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.

From there, they scale up to the state level and claim 12% incidence statewide. The news story says it is using the same calculation, but it can't be—how did they get from 6.6% to 12%? Perhaps they estimating infected *ever* versus infected *currently*. It's not clear.

Using that 12% infected figure, and a known 1400 deaths in California, they assume 1400 out of 4.7 million have died. That gives them an infection fatality rate of 0.03%. That is, they think that if 10,000 are infected, 3 will die on average.

The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.

Estimating that fraction infected from patients at an urgent care facility is a bit like estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court. It's not a random sample, and it gives a highly biased estimate. Moreover the estimate does not pass even a basic plausibility check. In New York City, 12,067 people are known to have died from the virus, out of a population of 8.4 million. This is a rate of 0.14% of all people. Not just infected people. All people. That gives us a lower bound on the death rate in New York. Not an estimate, a lower bound. The death rate for infected people is obviously higher than 0.14%, because not everyone in New York has been infected. And yet that 0.14% lower bound is nearly *five times as high* as the 0.03% that the Bakerfield duo are claiming. They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number.

Thx for taking the time to write up that rebuttal, it’s appreciated.

He probably should have acknowledged that he copied and pasted that all directly from the UW Bio prof Carl Bergstrom who's pretty actively reporting the covid science. A good follow right now.

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/sta...656716288?s=20

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/sta...228122113?s=20

[wooley12]

Yes

[mcski]

The other thing I’ve been seeeing posted repeatedly today is that the death numbers are inflated because all deaths are being listed as covid. Despite getting debunked over and over, they love the belief hospitals are making more money by listing covid as COD

[evdog]

San Diego County announced that it would allow beaches to reopen on Monday. Individual cities have to take action to open their own beaches and it sounds like many will. I don't think this is going to go well.

There were already tons of people coming out to beach cities to ride their cruisers, walk around, or go for a drive despite shelter in place order which says we're supposed to exercise in our local area not travel to destinations. Opening up the beaches even for limited activity will make them destinations especially with hot temps arriving. The only activities that are to be permitted are walking, biking, or running on sand, swimming, kayaking, surfing, SUPing - activities where you keep moving. Sitting, sunbathing or hanging out in one spot are not permitted. This is exactly what the majority of people who drive in to the beach want to do and I don't think they'll get it. They will hear "beaches open" and flock here in large numbers. What are they all going to do, follow the rules and do laps walking up and down the beach? And parking lots will not be open, so all of these people are going to circle the blocks endlessly looking for already limited parking spots. Wonderful.

[Tri-Ungulate]

Are 1,000 HCWs worth 40% unemployment & martial law?

Huh. Martial law. Uh, yeah.

Sometimes you get more than you bargain for.

"Unpopular take: didn’t nurses and doctors sign up for this? I have respect for the great job they’re doing, but this is exactly what they signed up for."
-J.T. Lewis Republican candidate for Senate, Sandy Hook CT

[jono]

... In New York City, 12,067 people are known to have died from the virus, out of a population of 8.4 million. This is a rate of 0.14% of all people. Not just infected people. All people. That gives us a lower bound on the death rate in New York. Not an estimate, a lower bound. The death rate for infected people is obviously higher than 0.14%, because not everyone in New York has been infected. And yet that 0.14% lower bound is nearly *five times as high* as the 0.03% that the Bakerfield duo are claiming. They've used absurd methodology to arrive at an implausible number.

Thanks for taking the time. Though maybe not everyone appreciates the difference between an estimate and a lower bound, to those that do, this is the most compelling part. Given that, any estimate of very low death tolls has to assume both a massive infection rate in NY and a minimum of future deaths among those currently infected. I can't imagine any logical argument that actual death rate is less than 0.5% given that lower bound, unless it relies on blaming NY's overwhelmed health care system--the exact scenario we're trying to prevent.

What is the upper bound for NY? I'm getting 7.5% from confirmed deaths/confirmed cases.

[powdrhound]

The rehab hospital on the other side of my back fence has reported an outbreak. 51 positive patients and staff.

Damn.

[jono]

Are 1,000 HCWs worth 40% unemployment & martial law? Sometimes you get more than you bargain for.

You know better than to make a statement that one thing is "worth" another when the two things cannot be traded. You also know enough to at least estimate the unemployment rate under other conditions, so what is the lower bound on that? What's the absolute lowest possible UE rate we could have right now if we chose the single most employment-friendly strategy, and what would that be? I won't ask you how many would die under that scenario, there are plenty of people making those models. But no one is offering up a comparative economic analysis.

I put it to you that no such analysis can support any large reduction in social distancing at this moment because the resulting difference between the upper and lower bounds on cost (UE, reduced tax receipts, increased deficit spending, you name it) are so vanishingly small that no one has the balls to defend the "low cost" option. Prove me wrong if you can.

[sharcsplean]

The other thing I’ve been seeeing posted repeatedly today is that the death numbers are inflated because all deaths are being listed as covid. Despite getting debunked over and over, they love the belief hospitals are making more money by listing covid as COD

Except for Florida - they are under reporting to make the orange buffoon happy. Non-residents deaths are not counted .

I am not making this up....

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health...ng-some-cases/

[CantDog]

The other thing I’ve been seeeing posted repeatedly today is that the death numbers are inflated because all deaths are being listed as covid. Despite getting debunked over and over, they love the belief hospitals are making more money by listing covid as COD

You mean people are reporting all deaths (like terminal cancer, no covid) or are reporting people who died with covid as a comorbidity?(dementia, developed covid, died)

[Benny Profane]

Good summary of where we are.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...illing-us.html

[Benny Profane]

Hmmm ... looks like the reported death counts may be on the low side.

Attachment 326494

https://www.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-...9-0d5c6fac846c

[Lone Star]

drivel

We're kinda alike in a way. People generally enjoy seeing our pictures and generally agree that we should STFU and just post pictures.

[jono]

"Worth" trades are being made every day on this thing by you & everyone else with an opinion. And the "worth" calculus for a HCW or the medical types in this thread is very different from that of unemployed ppl - incentive distribution is bimodal, and not between 'woke' and 'trumptard'. It's an intentionally impossible question meant to highlight that trade-offs are requisite: you cannot hide behind uncertainty principle on the right tail (HC overload) and pretend like the left tail (social & economic collapse) doesn't exist.

I was being literal, not rhetorical. You can't trade things if there is no way to give up one in exchange for the other. You know this. Show a scenario where a different strategy gives up more healthcare workers for a better economic outcome if you know of one. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking to even put this in terms of a choice. That kind of talk is driving lots of people to very stupid thoughts and actions right now.

[jono]

I agree with the observations you're making, but the point still stands: what is the quantitative improvement in the economy that you expect from taking any of those steps?

Just because there are other options doesn't mean they will result in an improved economy. The economy waits on consumer confidence and actual availability of willing workers. Account for those and what do you see?

[dunfree]

What retail restrictions? I can get pretty much anything curbside right now. Nobody’s buying.

[The AD]

I'm expecting a big surge of "see, things are reopening and the world hasn't ended yet" type social media posts very soon. There's no way these kind of people would realize (or acknowledge) that we won't know the effects of reopening for a couple weeks.

[t-the-east]

Seems like there should be a special medal for that.

I think Trump mentioned this last week. He’s calling it a Noble.

[huckbucket]

Bet every single American would prefer to be one of these other countries right now, even if just for the economic benefit.

[happytimefunbox]

Social distancing report from this weekend in the SL,UT Valley.
Spring has sprung and everyone is out n about.
Bailed on Home Deport line out the door. Only one mask in line noted.
Bailed on Costco full maze then past tires and around the corner.
Bailed on Tanner's Park with the dogs no parking in the lot or on the street.
Walked up on the ridge in the offleash and it was busy.
My time at the ghetto Smith's was a 5050 mix masked and unmasked.
Rowed the raft around deer crick attempting to exercise some fish no masks on those out in boats.
Or the chikas in bikinis on the beach or out on SUPs
Traffic is on the upswing
Is it over?

[huckbucket]

Social distancing report from this weekend in the SL,UT Valley.
Spring has sprung and everyone is out n about.
Bailed on Home Deport line out the door. Only one mask in line noted.
Bailed on Costco full maze then past tires and around the corner.
Bailed on Tanner's Park with the dogs no parking in the lot or on the street.
Walked up on the ridge in the offleash and it was busy.
My time at the ghetto Smith's was a 5050 mix masked and unmasked.
Rowed the raft around deer crick attempting to exercise some fish no masks on those out in boats.
Or the chikas in bikinis on the beach or out on SUPs
Traffic is on the upswing
Is it over?

Oh, it's over. It's ALL over.

[Lone Star]

Rowed the raft around deer crick attempting to exercise some fish no masks on those out in boats.

Hahahaha! I always thought fisherman bros wore their buffs as a style piece. Now that everyone's covering their faces, fisher bros gotta UNMASK to be cool?

But seriously, I feel like my caution level is pretty high but I really don't see a point in a mask in a boat in the middle of a lake, except for said sun protection threads.

[Core Shot]

Had a birthday party for my oldest.
In our backyard.
Fuck it. Social distancing in effect, but everyone agreed it felt “normal” and that was refreshing for us all.
Sadly I couldn’t hug the milfy milfs. I miss hugging nice titties.