D&D and the rising pandemic

[FrogReaver]

Right. But again, SK's extensive testing proves that can't be what is happening,

Elaborate here because I'm not following this part. What about SK testing disproves that?

however hopeful and reassuring it might be to believe that is what is happening. Likewise, the size of outbreaks can be predicted to within constraints that, while those constraints may seem large (often give or take an order of magnitude), nonetheless do constrain the base number greatly because very small changes in the base number yield massive changes in the outcome of exponential functions over time.

Underlying math here:

I understand math and how the variables will relate to each other.

EDIT: One other thing I should have said is that the reverse of your argument is possible as well. People who make the argument you are making here tend to assume rather unreasonably that we have accurately documented the deaths, but not accurately documented the cases.

I brought that up as a possibility as well. I fully agree that there will be undocumented deaths from this - though fewer and fewer as testing ramps up. We have not accounted for all deaths. But I think it's reasonable to believe that the number of undocumented cases is far higher than the number of undocumented deaths. Really sick people exhibiting the symptoms of the virus will be tested (or should be...) So at this stage it's fairly unlikely you will die from it without being tested whereas it's quite a bit more likely that if you only display no to mild symptoms that you are not going to be tested anytime in the near future (at least in the U.S.)

And while that might seem reasonable, it's not really true except in cases when you are testing extensively. In the US for example, we almost certainly haven't documented all of our deaths. Small numbers of unconnected deaths which aren't tested will just hide in the 'flu season' numbers. There are in fact an anomalously large number of deaths in the US over the last few months which tested negative for influenza. It's highly likely that these will eventually be connected to coronavirus, and indeed I know of at least one case where that actually happened and a death was 'back dated' after it was traced to a cluster and tested.

Right but it's reasonable to believe at least at this point in time with current testing that what you are describing is orders of magnitudes lower than those with it and mild symptoms.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The TP shortage is almost purely at points of sale. There’s plenty to be had in the supply chain, but people keep panic buying it.

Here in D/FW, our houseguest was someplace, gave the cashier the Masonic handshake & made the sign of Hastur, and was rewarded with being able to buy 6 rolls...of single-ply.

Tried it tonight. Got a paper cut.

 

[Celebrim]

Elaborate here because I'm not following this part. What about SK testing disproves that?

You had the hypothesis: "If 5 times the people have it than are confirmed as having it (presumably most of those cases would be milder) then you have a much lower mortality rate."

In other words, you are suggesting that far more than 80% of the cases are mild, and that in fact the outbreaks are 500% large than have been documented. This would suggest that perhaps 96% of the cases are mild, and we are catching only the 4% most severe and only like a 5th of the mild cases. And it's possible to believe that in say the USA where testing has been limited so far, but in cases like South Korea that pattern of the disease is in fact impossible. Because if the disease had that pattern, South Korea with its wide nets of testing would be detecting all of those mild cases. With an R0 that high and a disease spreading that widely, they'd get lower and lower numbers of negative tests. Most tests would be turning up positive. But that isn't being observed. Instead, as they casts their nets wider, they get fewer and fewer positives.

And again, in fact R0 was high enough that the disease was spreading everywhere sufficiently to see the real numbers of cases be 5 times that observed, then we'd see very different things than we see. The R0 is in fact fairly well constrained at this point. It might be 2.5, it might be 4, but it very unlikely to be wildly off that.

Similarly, so is the mortality rate assuming sufficient care is available. It might be 2%. It might be 3.6%. But it's very unlikely to be wildly off that.

Now, left untreated, we have very good reason so suspect that it's much higher than 3.4%. Those numbers assume that those requiring oxygen can receive it. If they can't, experience shows mortality rate shoots up over 5%. And of course, different demographics in a population will effect the observed rate as well.

Right but it's reasonable to believe at least at this point in time with current testing that what you are describing is orders of magnitudes lower than those with it and mild symptoms.

Well in the sense that we would expect early on in an epidemic if you have spotty documentation for cases to be about 240 times more than deaths if in fact the R0 is around 3, and the mortality rate is around 3.4, and the disease takes 5-7 days to incubate, and then another 12-14 days to become lethal, then yes.

However, the R0 and mortality rate that we have are being increasingly tightly constrained.

 

[Umbran]

... when you stop trying to put people into anti-science camps ...

Ah, if only you recognized what I was trying to do.

I don't think you are anti-science. I gather from your writings that you think folks who have been studying such things for decades and make their livelihoods modelling such events miss simple, basic elements of their own work that you don't.

So, is that inaccurate?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, if only you recognized what I was trying to do.

I don't think you are anti-science. I gather from your writings that you think folks who have been studying such things for decades and make their livelihoods modelling such events miss simple, basic elements of their own work that you don't.

So, is that inaccurate?

I dunno. You believe professionals never make an error that you would be able to spot . Is that accurate?

 

[Celebrim]

Ah, if only you recognized what I was trying to do.

I don't think you are anti-science. I gather from your writings that you think folks who have been studying such things for decades and make their livelihoods modelling such events miss simple, basic elements of their own work that you don't.

So, is that inaccurate?

I don't think it is inaccurate, but I'd also like to not be as harsh on frogreaver as all that.

The questions he's having and the models he's offering up are indeed models that some real professional epidemiologists did offer up as possibilities earlier in the pandemics spread. And many of those claims did filter into mainstream journalism through editorials, interviews with experts, social media and so forth. Unlike a lot of theories out there, these aren't views of reality based on wild conspiracy theories.

The high R0 low mortality rate model, or what you might call the optimistic model, was in fact very plausible and very much promoted by some experts back in January and early February. So it's entirely reasonable for a layman to latch on to it. In fact, in my experience with people, regardless of the level of their education, they tend to latch on to the first thing that is explained to them in a forceful and authoritative manner. They they go about defending that initial impression to the death (as it were). Indeed, even professionals who form these hypothesis act in very much the same manner, defending their model of reality even as new evidence appears.

And there is a huge mental cost to letting go of this particular mental model, even more so than the usual.

 

[Mistwell]

Big box stores are selling out of toilet paper. Meanwhile, every gas station has plenty on the shelves of their mini marts. Because people seem very focused on big box stores and buying bulk right now.

 

[Celebrim]

Big box stores are selling out of toilet paper. Meanwhile, every gas station has plenty on the shelves of their mini marts. Because people seem very focused on big box stores and buying bulk right now.

I find the sociology of bulk toilet paper buying to be really fascinating. I haven't seen any data on it, because really who has time to study that right now, but I've seen a lot of interesting theories.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Big box stores are selling out of toilet paper. Meanwhile, every gas station has plenty on the shelves of their mini marts. Because people seem very focused on big box stores and buying bulk right now.

 

[Azzy]

The TP shortage is almost purely at points of sale. There’s plenty to be had in the supply chain, but people keep panic buying it.

It's not panic buying, it's greed and the desire to instigate and profit from the fears of the pandemic.