D&D and the rising pandemic

[NotAYakk]

Iran hasn't had millions die, as of last night it was less than 1000.

They've also got a young population.

If it goes on long term lockdowns will have to end.

(A) their numbers are lies. Pretty transparent lies.

They had a pretty normal for C19 exponential curve. Then one day, their new cases plummited and 90% of those who had it where listed as recovered, which isn't how Covid 19 works. After that it they seemed to be rolling dice to see what gets submitted, with values going up and down.

Meanwhile, a large percentage of their parlaiment is sick with it and a bunch of their leaders have died. Those are harder to hide.

(B) if I'm right, and 1%-8% of the country is infected, almost all of them got infected in the last week, because that is what exponential curves look like. It takes about 20 days to die.

In a month, Iran is going to be bad. Not sure how bad. Other countries which aren't self isolating and whose government is a bit less insular will also experience it over the next few months, and we'll have plenty of video footage of mass graves.

You seem to believe personal risk of catching and group risk of catching are independent. I would say they are very much dependent. If I minimize my individual chances of catching then I’m minimizing chances of spreading. Amazing how that works.

Yes, I'm aware that actually telling you what is going on doesn't work. I gave you a 7 paragraph answer to your question, and you dismissed it off hand. /shrug

Regardless, I'll explain again. Because maybe someone will listen.

Suppose you have an infection that grows by a factor of 10 every week, like Covid-19 can.

Now, suppose there is a "cult of the lick", which goes up to strangers and licks them. They only do this once per year. If they lick someone with the virus, they catch it. Each licks 1000 people on that day.

There are 1 thousand of them, and there are 1 million in the country.

On day 1, there is 1 person sick with the virus. The cult of the lick activates!

Each of them have a 1 in 1 thousand chance of being infected. Together, they have about a 63% chance of nobody being infected, and on average one of them gets infected (sometimes 0, sometimes 1, sometimes 2, sometimes more; the average is 1 = 0.001 * 1000).

So 4 weeks later there is an average of 20000 people sick, 2% of the population, if the "cult of the lick" activated on day 1. Call this scenario A.

In scenario B, the cult of the lick activates 3 weeks later. There are now 1000 people infected.

Each one has a 63% chance of being infected (we'll assume they cannot pass it to anyone else immediately); each lick is .999 likely to be safe, and .999^1000 is 37%ish, so 63% chance of being infected. Much higher! On average, the 1000 members of the cult of the lick infect 630 more people. (well, 630/1000 of them)

So the total infected goes up from 1000 to 1630.

Then another week passes. On week 4, there are 16300 people infected on average.

In Scenario A, the risk of being infected for members of the cult was lower, the number of newly infected people was lower, but the population after 4 week was worse off.

In Scenario B, the risk of a licker was higher, more people where infected by the mass-licking, but the population after 4 weeks was better off than Scenario A.

Taking a risk earlier in an exponential situation is worse for the population, even if it is sometimes better for the individual.

 

[Mirtek]

Using what measure?

The meassure of not wanting to sleep outside because you could no longer pay bills for eletricity, water, rent/mortage, .....

 

[Zardnaar]

(A) their numbers are lies. Pretty transparent lies.

They had a pretty normal for C19 exponential curve. Then one day, their new cases plummited and 90% of those who had it where listed as recovered, which isn't how Covid 19 works. After that it they seemed to be rolling dice to see what gets submitted, with values going up and down.

Meanwhile, a large percentage of their parlaiment is sick with it and a bunch of their leaders have died. Those are harder to hide.

(B) if I'm right, and 1%-8% of the country is infected, almost all of them got infected in the last week, because that is what exponential curves look like. It takes about 20 days to die.

In a month, Iran is going to be bad. Not sure how bad. Other countries which aren't self isolating and whose government is a bit less insular will also experience it over the next few months, and we'll have plenty of video footage of mass graves.

Yes, I'm aware that actually telling you what is going on doesn't work. I gave you a 7 paragraph answer to your question, and you dismissed it off hand. /shrug

Regardless, I'll explain again. Because maybe someone will listen.

Suppose you have an infection that grows by a factor of 10 every week, like Covid-19 can.

Now, suppose there is a "cult of the lick", which goes up to strangers and licks them. They only do this once per year. If they lick someone with the virus, they catch it. Each licks 1000 people on that day.

There are 1 thousand of them, and there are 1 million in the country.

On day 1, there is 1 person sick with the virus. The cult of the lick activates!

Each of them have a 1 in 1 thousand chance of being infected. Together, they have about a 63% chance of nobody being infected, and on average one of them gets infected (sometimes 0, sometimes 1, sometimes 2, sometimes more; the average is 1 = 0.001 * 1000).

So 4 weeks later there is an average of 20000 people sick, 2% of the population, if the "cult of the lick" activated on day 1. Call this scenario A.

In scenario B, the cult of the lick activates 3 weeks later. There are now 1000 people infected.

Each one has a 63% chance of being infected (we'll assume they cannot pass it to anyone else immediately); each lick is .999 likely to be safe, and .999^1000 is 37%ish, so 63% chance of being infected. Much higher! On average, the 1000 members of the cult of the lick infect 630 more people. (well, 630/1000 of them)

So the total infected goes up from 1000 to 1630.

Then another week passes. On week 4, there are 16300 people infected on average.

In Scenario A, the risk of being infected for members of the cult was lower, the number of newly infected people was lower, but the population after 4 week was worse off.

In Scenario B, the risk of a licker was higher, more people where infected by the mass-licking, but the population after 4 weeks was better off than Scenario A.

Taking a risk earlier in an exponential situation is worse for the population, even if it is sometimes better for the individual.

Yeah Iranian numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt. Still not millions,.

Emergency protein supply.

 

[MarkB]

Wow, this toilet paper thing was predicted long ago:

And far, far away.

 

[Umbran]

Using what measure? WW2 probably lowered living standards less in UK than global social isolation would. UK survived.

What is "feasible" if you want to avoid millions of deaths?

When the cure is as bad or worse than the disease, you have a problem.

Do remember - the Great Depression can be regarded as the cause for about 7 million deaths, mostly due to starvation or malnutrition. If the isolation causes economic depression, and folks lose their homes and food security, they aren't going to be self-isolating - they'll be in shelters or on the streets... getting sick.

Thus, there are limts to how far we can take isolation, and have it be helpful.

 

[Umbran]

(A) their numbers are lies. Pretty transparent lies.
Suppose you have an infection that grows by a factor of 10 every week, like Covid-19 can.

You may have listed this elsewhere, but... cite?

Last I saw, it has a doubling time of 3 to 6 days. That's 2x to 4x per week, not 10x.

 

[Zardnaar]

When the cure is as bad or worse than the disease, you have a problem.

Do remember - the Great Depression can be regarded as the cause for about 7 million deaths, mostly due to starvation or malnutrition. If the isolation causes economic depression, and folks lose their homes and food security, they aren't going to be self-isolating - they'll be in shelters or on the streets... getting sick.

Thus, there are limts to how far we can take isolation, and have it be helpful.

In the war years they did calculate how many would die in this situation vs that one.

Standard if living went up for the majority of the population in the war years in a lot if countries. Rationing improved the diets.

In WW1 the UK had a lot of conscripts fail the medical cf Australia/Canada/NZ.

Government's gonna have to make some hard decisions in a few weeks. Your choices are bad, worse and awful and it may not be apparent what one is what.

 

[slobster]

In the war years they did calculate how many would die in this situation vs that one.

Standard if living went up for the majority of the population in the war years in a lot if countries. Rationing improved the diets.

In WW1 the UK had a lot of conscripts fail the medical cf Australia/Canada/NZ.

Government's gonna have to make some hard decisions in a few weeks. Your choices are bad, worse and awful and it may not be apparent what one is what.

I feel confident in saying that the coronavirus will not be improving the international economic outlook or general way of life for the vast majority of people on this planet. Toilet paper rationing notwithstanding.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Today's New York Times has an article on a 100 page US government plan that was leaked to them. The plan anticipates that during the next 18 months there will be several waves of outbreaks. So, they way I read that, we'll have 2 or 3 months of lockdown, then 2 or 3 months of normal life, then lockdown again, then normal life, etc. It won't necessarily be global like what we're experiencing now but regional as we get better at tracking and containing early.

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel confident in saying that the coronavirus will not be improving the international economic outlook or general way of life for the vast majority of people on this planet. Toilet paper rationing notwithstanding.

Nope but they might have to look at rationing.