Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Rational people would call this definitive, not just suggestive. There is no doubt the social distancing measures are working, and they have not just broad support among the public; they have tremendous support. The steps do have another cost, though. It turns out I was wrong about the 30% furlough at my work-place since it turned out to be 75% myself included. The company is going to pay our health-care premium for two months, so that is one bright spot. Our director says he believes we will be back to work by the 6th of July, but most of us don't think it will happen. For me, it's no big deal, my family and I will be fine, but for a lot of other people, it's a real threat to their well-being. I'm afraid, however, that we will be dealing with the fallout of COVID for at least another 2 to 3 years. Things are not returning to normal anytime soon, and especially not with the response seen so far from our national government.

Hi James:

I'm really sorry to hear this.  Hopefully your director is correct.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Hi Maurice,

We will see. I've been wondering if this pandemic will create a profound or notable transition in our politics as well. I'm not hopeful, however, since we never seem to be able not to allow political ideology to drive our public policy instead of common sense, hard data, and expert advice.

Hi James:

Maybe at the national stage.  As I've written extensively, I've been very pleased with our governor's common sense, hard data, and expert advice approach to the stay at home order and his gradual and staged lifting of that order, starting in a couple of days.  

As I've mentioned, our Governor is a lefty (Rich hates him no doubt) but on this issue he is moving in concert with the other Rocky Mountain governors who tend to be much more conservative.  He certainly is not following the allegedly "science based" editorialists in the NYT or CNN who would, based upon a broad read of yesterdays offerings, have us locked down indefinitely.  He also is not grandstanding like national politicians, Trump of course but Cuomo and Pelosi too.  I have no idea what our Governor's common sense/science based (and in my view correct) approach is costing him with the national party.  He seems to be a bit of a maverick.

Jim

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

Rod, I certainly think Trump is mistaken when he touts some of his figures on a daily basis regarding how many people "may" have died if certain steps hadn't been taken. I think the biggest problem is that the "shut down" was based on wildly inaccurate data(millions dying) and was more of an emotional response. It's obvious that if we had known that 50,000+ US deaths would have occurred over this time period, there definitely would not have been such drastic action taken.

From the article: "Redlener said that the issue with models is they come up with an answer to a question, such as what the fatality rate is, or when the apex of cases will be. "The problem is forecasting is increasingly inaccurate because of the variables," he told Newsweek. "[They] come up with an answer, but the answer does not necessarily reflect specificity, because of the assumptions that go into the formula. If you put in uncertain numbers and assumptions that can't really be proved, the conclusions are not necessarily accurate."  

I'm inclined to think that this applies to the social distancing conclusions regarding its effect.

Hi Darian:


The reason I started this long running and entertaining thread (if I do say so myself ) was to demonstrate with data that social distancing and other mitigation efforts are working.  Consider the first graph I posted, an updated version is below.  In the seven days after March 14, the number of infections in the US doubled every two days.  In the week after, the number of infections doubled every 3.2 days.  The next week the number of infection doubled every 5.3 days.  Since then, the infection rate is no longer on an exponential curve.  On the contrary the US infections have been fairly steadily increasing at a linear rate of around 30,000 confirmed infections per day.

Obviously there are a lot of variables at play here.  Testing rates, and so on.  Still, something happened after March 14 to knock this virus off of its torrid exponential infection curve.  We know that the virus did not run out of new people to infect.  We know that the virus has not become less infectious.  The only reasonable candidate left is that the social distancing, stay at home orders and the rest of our mitigation efforts had the desired impact.  I don't think the models were wrong by the way.  The predictions of 100s of thousands or a million dead were predicated on us taking no mitigation steps.  We took those steps, and they worked as desired.  This is shown in the data.

Jim

  

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

It's obvious that if we had known that 50,000+ US deaths would have occurred over this time period, there definitely would not have been such drastic action taken.

I sure see it differently.  Flattening the curve worked in most places.  We did not overwhelmed the healthcare system on a national basis. 

Also, we'll have a lot more than 50,000 deaths when this is over with.  The deaths will continue to come in at the clip of 10,000 per week or more for at least several more weeks.  If we are really lucky, the infections will abate with summer, like the flu.  If not, it will be at least 10,000 a week until we have an effective therapy.

The state of New York currently has over 1000 deaths per million citizens.  They are obviously not yet done dying in New York either.  The only difference between New York and the rest of us is a much slower natural infection rate because we are more spread out.  We have slowed the infection rate out even more with mitigation.  Now we need for one of these therapies to work and work well.  Otherwise time and the virus will eventually take their toll.

I'm in favor of cautiously opening up states like Colorado because the infection and death rates are now manageable.  We earned a manageable rate over the last five weeks, and, as I posted at length yesterday, I am pleased that the re-opening will be calculated and cautious.  It's not like the folks in Colorado are any more naturally resistant to the virus than those in NYC.

Jim     

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I appreciate that, Russ. I think the hardest thing for me is going to be missing the people, of course, but software developers pour a lot of heart-and-soul into their work. It is at its core a creative process, especially when you are solving complex real-world problems in software, like automating exchanges and refunds of airline documents. In some cases, we have products that no one else can provide because they have tried and failed. So, you get attached not to just the people, but the products as well.

James, being the forum Pollyanna¹, I naturally believe that one of the therapies under development will work really well and come June or July the airline industry will come roaring back.   I sure hope so, I have places I want to go!  Are you personally open to being recalled, if the need arises?  Sounds like you might be more open to retirement, albeit reluctantly.  

My work is slow right now, but steady.  I've always figured that some day I'd be one of those old lawyers who just fades away.  My younger partners don't think that model is possible in this day and age.  They see the need to be 100% involved 24/7, or else get out of the way of those who are.  They don't put it that way of course, and I am blessed with younger partners who are more talented than us older folks.  Sometimes I feel like a relic from a bygone era though!

My wife is literally working her butt off.  She's a sales executive in the energy sector, which is going full blast.  Relentless WebEx and Teams meetings from dawn to dusk.  I have to bring her lunch at her desk most days!  This article really resonated with her:

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-23/working-from-home-in-covid-era-means-three-more-hours-on-the-job

Just some random musings for a Saturday morning while the rest of the crew sleeps.  I certainly do not want to make light of your personal situation, but it is interesting how the pandemic is killing some sectors and overworking others.

Jim

1.  In addition to my role as Pollyanna, I also am the chief death-chartist.  Who would have guessed!

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Approx 12 countries did not force lockdowns beyond mass gatherings or institute enforced rules on the public as well as no school closings.....yet their infection rates and deaths track closely with those that have, mostly middle of the pack. 

Hi Greg: 

I agree with a lot of what you have posted.  As you know, I support the cautious and calculated opening of the economies in most states, as those states see fit, and based upon the data applicable to that state. 

I don't know the ID of the 12 countries you have mentioned above.  I am pretty sure one of them is Sweden, which has received quite a bit of press because they chose not to have an enforced lock down.   I believe that the data actually shows that Sweden has paid a price for their relaxed approach to the pandemic.  Their infection rates and deaths do not track closely with the most similarly situated countries, which took more aggressive mitigation.  The Worldometer data shows that deaths per million for Sweden are over 6 times the deaths per million for the neighboring Scandinavian countries of Finland and Norway.

I've included New York and the rest of the US in the graph below, for perspective.  Also, it may well be that Sweden believes that 6x the death rate was "worth it" when compared to the cost of clamping down the economy.  I would probably buy into such an argument.

Very importantly, it is clear from the Worldometer data that the death and infection rates in Sweden are slowing along the same trajectories as those in Finland and Norway.  So arguably the Swedes were right all along.  I only dispute the fact that their death and infection rates tracked similar countries who implemented more aggressive mitigation.  At lease not so far.  Maybe the other Scandinavian countries will catch up as restrictions are relaxed.  That would make the Swedes look pretty smart.

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I think I will trust what the people in Sweden have to say over fake news CNN anyday lol

The CNN article had a lot of the same data I posted but it was not as analytically balanced or as well written as my post!    

There is an article linked on Real Clear Politics this morning from a Swedish scientist suggesting that they could effectively reach herd immunity levels in a few weeks.  That would be great, assuming the social cost is not too high, and so far, it looks pretty good.  Also assuming that immunity for recovered COVID 19 folks is actually a thing.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/04/28/coronavirus-covid-19-sweden-anders-tegnell-herd-immunity/3031536001/

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

When all is said and done and we look back on this as a historical event there will be no way to prove that, either,

There were only X deaths because the virus was no more deadly than the flu....

or

There were only X deaths because social distancing and keeping stuff closed actually worked.....

We're all just pushing on a rope here.

Dave

Not really Dave.  Some of the data I have posted shows fairly conclusively that COVID 19 is far more deadly than the flu, when we consider the rapidity and quantity of deaths over time.  Consider this fact (provided by a data scientist I am acquainted with):  As of a few days ago, there had been 41 days since the 100th COVID 19 death in the US.  Eliminating the time it took to get to 100 deaths, eliminates the noisy data in the ramp-up phase.  In those 41 days, 54,256 US folks died with COVID 19.

Compare this to the “bad flu” season of 2017-18, where we had 1062 deaths in the first 41 days after the first 100 deaths.  That is 51 times greater mortality for COVID 19 to the equivalent date.  When compared to the  “good flu” season of 2011-12, where we had 179 deaths to the equivalent 41 days after the first 100 deaths the disparity is much greater.  COVID 19 is 303 times greater mortality to the equivalent date.

What does this mean?  There is probably some testing artifact, but those are minimized when you talk about deaths.  For sure the extremely high "death velocity" means that COVID 19 was either much faster moving through the population (more infectious) or more lethal than the flu, or both.   Perhaps the pandemic will flame out just as quickly, with a number of deaths that is only equivalent to 1 or 2 times a bad flu season.  I certainly hope so!  But this infection and death "velocity" is nothing like any flu season we have ever seen.  Jim

As of yesterday:


 

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

When all is said and done and we look back on this as a historical event there will be no way to prove that, either,

There were only X deaths because the virus was no more deadly than the flu....

or

There were only X deaths because social distancing and keeping stuff closed actually worked.....

We're all just pushing on a rope here.

Dave

I think the comparison of the 2019-2020 flu season to the 2017-2018 flu season demonstrates quite well that the social distancing and closures worked spectacularly, at least for the flu.  As you know, I'm optimistic that cautious and thoughtful re-opening will work well too, starting with the less impacted regions.

So, I think that reasonable interpretation of the data does prove that this pandemic had the potential to be much much worse than the flu, but the mitigation efforts worked as designed.  

I'm not an idiot though.  We can never "prove" any of this to those who are 100% certain that the whole social distancing and stay at home order package was just an excuse for leftist master-minds to strip our liberties, and we can never "prove" any of this to those who are 100% certain that cautious reopening of the economy will inexorably lead to untold death and social collapse.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

The problem with your analysis is that it is faulty.  

Brilliant opening.