Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[swankyman]

 

I've no problem with the stats chances being published, its actually interesting (if true). I do object to them being presented in that way though, guess its just a sign of the times though. Misinformation and lies are the currency of the day now.

 

Ho hum.

Any chance of better tables anyone?

[captainb]

 

Cumulatively Argentina still have less deaths than Mexico. The difference between the, is Argentina lockdowned hard early but relaxed later, Mexico had its one lockdown but it was weaker. As the result Argentina wave is delayed relatively to Mexico. You should also expect around 35% more deaths in Argentina as its population is older than Mexico. 

Restricting social contacts is the only way to stop the virus spread we have at the moment. That is the reality whether you like them or not.  

 

Yes, but thats like saying, limiting the speed limit to 5mph is the only way to stop traffic deaths, "whether you like it or not".

Okay.. but is that course of action worth it? are there other measures in place that could have most of the benefit but avoid the vast cost? what is the risk if we dont do anything? 

 

We dont even seem to get beyond the childish "you cant put a price on life" argument at the moment. Which wilfully ignores the health impacts of the restrictions. 

Back to the traffic analogy we seem to have decided that asking people to wear seat belts (i.e asking vulnerable to shelter) is too much an imposition on their rights so gone straight for the 5mph speed limit without considering the rights of all those impacted. Its collective madness. 

[swankyman]

 

I've no problem with the stats chances being published, its actually interesting (if true). I do object to them being presented in that way though, guess its just a sign of the times though. Misinformation and lies are the currency of the day now.

 

Ho hum.

It not just lies and misinformation, it's also the blatant suppression of information too.

All three make it almost impossible for anyone to make a real judgment on what's actually happening in the world. You need to study it full time and not just believe a random poster in Facebook, news organisations, and the government. Even then 🤣

[slawek]

 

Yes, but thats like saying, limiting the speed limit to 5mph is the only way to stop traffic deaths, "whether you like it or not".

Okay.. but is that course of action worth it? are there other measures in place that could have most of the benefit but avoid the vast cost? what is the risk if we dont do anything? 

 

We dont even seem to get beyond the childish "you cant put a price on life" argument at the moment. Which wilfully ignores the health impacts of the restrictions. 

Back to the traffic analogy we seem to have decided that asking people to wear seat belts (i.e asking vulnerable to shelter) is too much an imposition on their rights so gone straight for the 5mph speed limit without considering the rights of all those impacted. Its collective madness. 

It is even worse. We can't come up and implement a strategy that would reduce both deaths and economy impact. What we are doing, a full lockdown very late when it is very bad and forcing people to socialise when the cases are low to stimulate economy, is maximising deaths and killing economy at the same time.  

Ideally we would need

a) come up as a collective with an utility function so that we can put value on lives and an economy. Of course nobody would be happy with it. Some prefer saving lives as an absolute priority, some prefer a new car even if that means 0.5m deaths. 

b) work out based on available information strategy that maximise our collective utility function

c) implement it

It is the gov job to do this.  Unfortunately they are rubbish at their job.     

[Peter Hun]

 

Cumulatively Argentina still have less deaths than Mexico. The difference between the, is Argentina lockdowned hard early but relaxed later, Mexico had its one lockdown but it was weaker. As the result Argentina wave is delayed relatively to Mexico. You should also expect around 35% more deaths in Argentina as its population is older than Mexico. 

Restricting social contacts is the only way to stop the virus spread we have at the moment. That is the reality whether you like them or not.  

 

I don't think using either Argentina or Mexico is a good example, Mexico is in a state of civil war and Argentina society is in a state of collapse. Both countries will hide and lie about deaths.

Uruguay is next to Argentina, same sort of people but with a working civil society. 

[swankyman]

 

It is even worse. We can't come up and implement a strategy that would reduce both deaths and economy impact. What we are doing, a full lockdown very late when it is very bad and forcing people to socialise when the cases are low to stimulate economy, is maximising deaths and killing economy at the same time.  

Ideally we would need

a) come up as a collective with an utility function so that we can put value on lives and an economy. Of course nobody would be happy with it. Some prefer saving lives as an absolute priority, some prefer a new car even if that means 0.5m deaths. 

b) work out based on available information strategy that maximise our collective utility function

c) implement it

It is the gov job to do this.  Unfortunately they are rubbish at their job.     

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[nightowl]

 

It will stop at some point. I don't know what will be the level. A lot depends on the gov and people. When they get serious about stopping it it will stop.  

A kind of worst case with no change. With the current R around 1.5 the herd immunity tipping point will be around 30% of population infected. With something like 7-8% already infected we will get 22-23% infected. That is 75k more deaths with IFR 0.5% (spreading more among youngs), 150k with 1% (virus spreading evenly among different age groups).  That is a death toll at the top, we will get additional deaths on a way down, maybe a half of the way up. So in total 100-200k deaths.  

In terms of 'stopping it' remember cv19 is thing of nature much like other viruses, hurricanes and earthquakes so that may not be be practical other than trying to mitigate it, and remember how long it took to eradicate small pox anyway.

I would be wary of projecting forward such numbers of deaths based on the 7/8% antibodies detected if only because we also know some people don't produce them and they fade away even then.  Also it's curious that the southern half of the country is not seeing rises like the north which is...well curious in itself and this is mostly true if university towns too. Curious again, so I do wonder if there is more 'herd resistance' in areas affected earlier on.  I know the phrase herd immunity is politically loaded here and elsewhere but that doesn't stop it exiting or at least influencing things.

[pig]

 

It is even worse. We can't come up and implement a strategy that would reduce both deaths and economy impact. What we are doing, a full lockdown very late when it is very bad and forcing people to socialise when the cases are low to stimulate economy, is maximising deaths and killing economy at the same time.  

Ideally we would need

a) come up as a collective with an utility function so that we can put value on lives and an economy. Of course nobody would be happy with it. Some prefer saving lives as an absolute priority, some prefer a new car even if that means 0.5m deaths. 

b) work out based on available information strategy that maximise our collective utility function

c) implement it

It is the gov job to do this.  Unfortunately they are rubbish at their job.     

But thats kind of what we are doing already - except the government swerved the September challenge.

Imagine the rows on here - without the luxury of the current counterfactual - if we'd locked down in September...

Edited October 21, 2020 by pig

[captainb]

 

It is even worse. We can't come up and implement a strategy that would reduce both deaths and economy impact. What we are doing, a full lockdown very late when it is very bad and forcing people to socialise when the cases are low to stimulate economy, is maximising deaths and killing economy at the same time.  

Ideally we would need

a) come up as a collective with an utility function so that we can put value on lives and an economy. Of course nobody would be happy with it. Some prefer saving lives as an absolute priority, some prefer a new car even if that means 0.5m deaths. 

b) work out based on available information strategy that maximise our collective utility function

c) implement it

It is the gov job to do this.  Unfortunately they are rubbish at their job.     

Agreed.

They are pretending to do something which is the worst of all worlds. 

See 10pm curfew which is now.. erm.. based... on A&E admissions not CV19, only "admitted" when taken to court over.

[Riedquat]

 

Agreed.

They are pretending to do something which is the worst of all worlds. 

See 10pm curfew which is now.. erm.. based... on A&E admissions not CV19, only "admitted" when taken to court over.

But it's a restriction! It must work and save lives, how dare anyone question it!

[pig]

 

Agreed.

They are pretending to do something which is the worst of all worlds. 

See 10pm curfew which is now.. erm.. based... on A&E admissions not CV19, only "admitted" when taken to court over.

At the time it was explained - and telegraphed before it happened-  because it had worked in Belgium.

Seems just as much that nobody thought about us p1ssheads would behave as trying to keep A&E clear.

[captainb]

 

At the time it was explained - and telegraphed before it happened-  because it had worked in Belgium.

Seems just as much that nobody thought about us p1ssheads would behave as trying to keep A&E clear.

Accept it hasnt worked in Belgium - see current case count.

 

[pig]

 

But it's a restriction! It must work and save lives, how dare anyone question it!

Candy for the medical officers -no lock down but here's a 10pm curfew and a rule of 6

 

[swankyman]

 

But thats kind of what we are doing already - except the government swerved the September challenge.

Imagine the rows on here - without the luxury of the current counterfactual - if we'd locked down in September...

No  it's not, because there is no real harm / cost calculation. Or maybe the government is afraid to publish one.

[pig]

 

No  it's not, because there is no real harm / cost calculation. Or maybe the government is afraid to publish one.

You mean an all encompassing NICE type algorithm / formula / equation resulting in two simple outputs either side of an =  ?

Perhaps, but literally all that is being discussed 24hrs is the balance between health and the economy.

 

[slawek]

 

But thats kind of what we are doing already - except the government swerved the September challenge.

Imagine the rows on here - without the luxury of the current counterfactual - if we'd locked down in September...

For me they are like bouncing between right and left shoulders on a highway instead finding a way in the middle. 

[Riedquat]

 

For me they are like bouncing between right and left shoulders on a highway instead finding a way in the middle. 

Agree with you on this. There's a strong whiff of "we've got to be seen to be doing something, anything!" about it. Any pretence at basing measures on an analysis of all the factors disappeared long ago, if it ever existed.

[swankyman]

 

Agree with you on this. There's a strong whiff of "we've got to be seen to be doing something, anything!" about it. Any pretence at basing measures on an analysis of all the factors disappeared long ago, if it ever existed.

👍

Exactly, pinning the government down on the amount of deaths that are acceptable will be almost impossible. The optics on it would be so negative. Twitter would have a break down. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by swankyman

[Sour Mash]

Latest study collated across multiple locations:

 COVID IFR:   0.23%

(less in many places - varies quite widely)

 

Comes from the divine authority of the WHO and based on seroprevalence so should shut up the doomers who like to deny T-Cell immunity plays a part and won't accept anything coming from anywhere else .

 

Heh!   Who am I kidding ...  they just love authoritarian lockdowns and think this disease is so deadly it's worth destroying the economy, utterly. 🙄

 

[Riedquat]

 

👍

Exactly, pinning the government down on the amount of deaths that are acceptable will be almost impossible. The optics on it would be so negative. Twitter would have a break down. 

To be fair I don't blame them for avoiding that - "What number do you find acceptable?" is almost always an attack rather than a genuine, meaningful question. It also tends to get used in a very binary fashion - one below, everything's fine, one above, complete and utter failure. And runs the risk of making that metric the one thing that matters - for example, if you've got a pandemic going on you have to accept that more deaths than usual is acceptable, to use that as a illustration of the problems in trying to pin down a number in the wider circumstances. It's really a subjective call, and I believe it's a mistake to try to make those look objective.

[slawek]

 

In terms of 'stopping it' remember cv19 is thing of nature much like other viruses, hurricanes and earthquakes so that may not be be practical other than trying to mitigate it, and remember how long it took to eradicate small pox anyway.

I would be wary of projecting forward such numbers of deaths based on the 7/8% antibodies detected if only because we also know some people don't produce them and they fade away even then.  Also it's curious that the southern half of the country is not seeing rises like the north which is...well curious in itself and this is mostly true if university towns too. Curious again, so I do wonder if there is more 'herd resistance' in areas affected earlier on.  I know the phrase herd immunity is politically loaded here and elsewhere but that doesn't stop it exiting or at least influencing things.

We have a good chance to have a vaccine or a treatment. So it is no inevitable that most of us has to get it. A possible strategy is to delay the virus until we have got a solution.

I think antibody survey are not far from the true number. My guess is that they underestimate the infections by 10-20% based on papers I have read.  That doesn't change much.

I don't know the reason why south is behind. It could be just a random event. If you look at different countries in Europe there is no much evidence that countries most affected by the first wave are doing better than countries that were mostly untouched.

[swankyman]

 

Latest study collated across multiple locations:

 COVID IFR:   0.23%

(less in many places - varies quite widely)

 

Comes from the divine authority of the WHO and based on seroprevalence so should shut up the doomers who like to deny T-Cell immunity plays a part and won't accept anything coming from anywhere else .

 

Heh!   Who am I kidding ...  they just love authoritarian lockdowns and think this disease is so deadly it's worth destroying the economy, utterly. 🙄

 

Average of all ages.

Edited October 21, 2020 by swankyman

[Riedquat]

 

We have a good chance to have a vaccine or a treatment. So it is no inevitable that most of us has to get it. A possible strategy is to delay the virus until we have got a solution.

In complete contrast to my last post (so fair enough if you ignore this one ) just what chance is a good chance?

It's a good example of the problems with making decisions, because what's appropriate if you're going to get a vaccine a little later down the line isn't appropriate if we don't, so there's no way of avoiding the fact that there's a chance of making the wrong decision even with the best will in the world and with the most information and intelligence. Certainty is no more possible than it is in gambling.

[captainb]

 

We have a good chance to have a vaccine or a treatment. So it is no inevitable that most of us has to get it. A possible strategy is to delay the virus until we have got a solution.

I think antibody survey are not far from the true number. My guess is that they underestimate the infections by 10-20% based on papers I have read.  That doesn't change much.

I don't know the reason why south is behind. It could be just a random event. If you look at different countries in Europe there is no much evidence that countries most affected by the first wave are doing better than countries that were mostly untouched.

I potentially agree with that.

But that delay should be at minimal cost to everything else. No good napalming the village to save the village.

I would throw the 10pm curfew into the doesn't stand up to a wiff of scrutiny camp, but comes at a huge cost to people. 250k jobs in London alone was one estimate.  

[swankyman]

 

To be fair I don't blame them for avoiding that - "What number do you find acceptable?" is almost always an attack rather than a genuine, meaningful question. It also tends to get used in a very binary fashion - one below, everything's fine, one above, complete and utter failure. And runs the risk of making that metric the one thing that matters - for example, if you've got a pandemic going on you have to accept that more deaths than usual is acceptable, to use that as a illustration of the problems in trying to pin down a number in the wider circumstances. It's really a subjective call, and I believe it's a mistake to try to make those look objective.

It all depends on how much government intervention you want. Some threshold has to be reached for processes to be put into action. 

The problem with calculating any of this is which 'expert' do we trust to carry it out. So many unknowns