just read the works you cited and you are correct. his baseline model mathematically incorporated no intervention. that model was adjusted parametrically to reflect gradations of intervention, to estimate impact on public health. those interventions and their mathematical representations in his model reflect assumptions on their impact, as reflected in his only publication on this subject.k2aggie07 said:No, this is incorrect. The original paper took a baseline and studied the effect of intervention against the baseline. The model assumptions were not changed. There was no modification. There was no first or second publication. Just the one.Quote:
i understand your point and that the baseline IC model assumptions were modified to incorporate social distancing following the policy changes (the model assumptions were changed, if that is better terminology - sorry to be pedantic but a model with different assumptions incorporated mathematically into its parameters is a different model).
The_Fox said:Ok. Let say 10,000 deaths. Than gives me a 1 in 3,000 chance. I'm still risking it. 30,000 deaths? So 1 in 1,000. Guess what? I'm still risking it.HouAggie2007 said:
You do realize it's 1,000 with a large amount of social distancing?
Texans should be given the the chance to make their own cost/benefit calculation and then the individual choice to risk it or not. Period.
Believe me, I know. There is zero f'ing chance of 30K deaths in Texas from COVID this year and even that would be acceptable.Double Diamond said:The_Fox said:Ok. Let say 10,000 deaths. Than gives me a 1 in 3,000 chance. I'm still risking it. 30,000 deaths? So 1 in 1,000. Guess what? I'm still risking it.HouAggie2007 said:
You do realize it's 1,000 with a large amount of social distancing?
Texans should be given the the chance to make their own cost/benefit calculation and then the individual choice to risk it or not. Period.
That's just not how it works.
He's pretty intent on letting us all know just how few ****s he gives.Fitch said:
Seems like the last part of that statement could have been left off unless the intent was to be incendiary.
The_Fox said:Believe me, I know. There is zero f'ing chance of 30K deaths in Texas from COVID this year and even that would be acceptable.Double Diamond said:The_Fox said:Ok. Let say 10,000 deaths. Than gives me a 1 in 3,000 chance. I'm still risking it. 30,000 deaths? So 1 in 1,000. Guess what? I'm still risking it.HouAggie2007 said:
You do realize it's 1,000 with a large amount of social distancing?
Texans should be given the the chance to make their own cost/benefit calculation and then the individual choice to risk it or not. Period.
That's just not how it works.
The same can be said about the flu. This has killed like 16 people under 50 in Texas. It is a cost/benefit analysis and does not even begin to militate towards keeping this shut down. If you are scared, stay home. If you are scared for a family member, make them stay home.Double Diamond said:The_Fox said:Believe me, I know. There is zero f'ing chance of 30K deaths in Texas from COVID this year and even that would be acceptable.Double Diamond said:The_Fox said:Ok. Let say 10,000 deaths. Than gives me a 1 in 3,000 chance. I'm still risking it. 30,000 deaths? So 1 in 1,000. Guess what? I'm still risking it.HouAggie2007 said:
You do realize it's 1,000 with a large amount of social distancing?
Texans should be given the the chance to make their own cost/benefit calculation and then the individual choice to risk it or not. Period.
That's just not how it works.
Seems a stance where you understand this is what was needed and you know it's crippling the economy. It's hard to let people just do there thing when they can infect so many.
Quote:
But now, the country's chief epidemiologist said the strategy appears to be working and that "herd immunity" could be reached in the capital Stockholm in a matter of weeks.
"In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau (in new cases) and we're already seeing the effect of herd immunity and in a few weeks' time we'll see even more of the effects of that. And in the rest of the country, the situation is stable," Dr. Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist at Sweden's Public Health Agency, told CNBC on Tuesday.
Herd immunity among a population, usually achieved through vaccination, is reached when around 60% of citizens are deemed immune. Without a vaccine for the coronavirus, however, scientists are looking at whether exposure to and recovery from Covid-19 leads to long-term immunity. Reinfections of coronavirus have been reported.
I didnt catch that earlier post, but looked at the article he linked. Are they the same thing - ie the prediction of X number "immune" by May 1st is tied to the antibody testing in the article I linked? One is a model a future prediction - withdrawn - but the article I linked (with admitted limitations in the article) was for antibody testing results only. And I was posting because I felt it showed they are still a good way away from what I had thought "herd immunity" required.k2aggie07 said:
Withdrawn for unspecified errors, as NASAg03 said above.
RandyAg98 said:
LINK
Sweden thinking it is a few weeks from herd immunity.
This story came out on April 22.Quote:
Tegnell said sampling and modeling data indicated that 20% of Stockholm's population is already immune to the virus, and that "in a few weeks' time we might reach herd immunity and we believe that is why we're seeing a slow decline in cases, in spite of sampling (testing for the coronavirus) more and more."
This is basically just a working as intended gif. The whole strategy for Sweden is to get it over as fast as possible without increasing their IFR. Right now it's hard to say definitively they're doing that, but I haven't seen articles about their hospitals being overrun or them being unable to provide adequate care.PJYoung said:
I post this understanding that where we stand on April 24th, 2020 is in no way shape or form the final word on Sweden's approach.
This tells us everything we need to know about you and your position and information gatheringfig96 said:
I quit listening to the pressers a few weeks back so I'll take your word for it
Quote:
On the face of it little has shut down. But data suggests the vast majority of the population have taken to voluntary social distancing, which is the crux of Sweden's strategy to slow the spread of the virus.
Usage of public transport has dropped significantly, large numbers are working from home, and most refrained from travelling over the Easter weekend. The government has also banned gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to elderly care homes.
Around 9 in 10 Swedes say they keep at least a metre away from people at least some of the time, up from seven in 10 a month ago, according to a major survey by polling firm Novus.
Quote:
In Stockholm, the epicentre of the virus so far, cases have largely plateaued, although there was a spike at the end of this week, put down partly to increased testing.
There is still space in intensive care units and a new field hospital at a former conference venue is yet to be used.
Quote:
A core aim was to introduce less stringent social distancing measures that could be maintained over a long period time. Schools for under-16s have remained open to enable parents to keep working in key areas.
Quote:
It has higher death rates in relation to its population size than anywhere else in Scandinavia.
Unlike in some countries, Sweden's statistics do include elderly care home residents, who account for around 50% of all deaths. Dr Tegnell admits that is a major concern.
That I don't want to waste an hour every night hearing the same questions and same answers with no real new information? You would be correct.Carnwellag2 said:This tells us everything we need to know about you and your position and information gatheringfig96 said:
I quit listening to the pressers a few weeks back so I'll take your word for it
