Bad News Thread

Quick analysis of b.1.117 (UK variant), and the next 2 months.

Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.

Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.

California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.

So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)

Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.

(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
 
Desert Hound said:
This is from last yr. The science hasn't changed. The politics has.

“It seems kind of intuitively obvious that if you put something—whether it’s a scarf or a mask—in front of your nose and mouth, that will filter out some of these viruses that are floating around out there,” says Dr. William Schaffner, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. The only problem: that’s not effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19. If it were, “the CDC would have recommended it years ago,” he says.

The science, according to the CDC, says that surgical masks won’t stop the wearer from inhaling small airborne particles, which can cause infection. Nor do these masks form a snug seal around the face.

The above is what the CDC and other orgs were saying for decades.

web.archive.org

Health Experts Are Telling Healthy People Not to Wear Face Masks for Coronavirus. So Why Are So Many Doing It?

The government and most health experts keep telling the public not to wear face masks for coronavirus. So why are they doing it anyway?
web.archive.org web.archive.org
Click to expand...
If you read your March 2020 article carefully, you will notice they are still asking whether a mask protects the wearer. As you noted, we had been asking that question for decades.

It turns out that is the wrong question.

The science did change. We got smart enough to ask a better question: Does a mask protect other people from the wearer?

This is why you had to find the article on archive.org. The science in the article is out of date, and the original publisher does not want to publish out of date and misleading information.
 
dad4 said:
Quick analysis of b.1.117 (UK variant), and the next 2 months.

Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.

Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.

California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.

So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)

Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.

(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
Click to expand...
By the way. You know which state has a big rise in the UK variant?

FL.
 
dad4 said:
Quick analysis of b.1.117 (UK variant), and the next 2 months.

Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.

Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.

California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.

So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)

Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.

(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
Click to expand...
By the way. We will watch TX and the other open states. Based on what we have seen over the last yr, there won't be a spike.

References...90% percent of kids are in schools in FL and TX. CA is about 5%

These states didn't shut down restaurants and biz. CA did.

Today all are about equal.

CA screwed the pooch.

Oh yeah the latest excuse for the reason the numbers are the same is that CA has a variant. Well FL does too. In theory their UK variant is worse vs the standard one as well.

Either way in about 4-6 weeks I lay money TX/FL don't have numbers and different vs CA.

At that point what will @dad4 have to say?

He out a marker out per say when he said TX abandoning masks and allow biz full capacity was a big problem.

We are just weeks away from seeing what happens...right?
 
Grace T. said:
One of the great disconnects here I suspect is we have a lot of i (introverted health policy experts who went into their fields because it offered a way to manage data and policy instead of patients and staff) who have very little idea or empathy of what the es (highly extroverted people) are going through. Really think about it....the idea that 20 somethings who aren’t married or cohabitating are going to go a year without dating Or have a fling...does anyone really imagine that’s possible?
Click to expand...
It's also the difference between those that work in a lab, clinical situation or research environment where you can control or eliminate variables vs. those that work in the real world where you can't control variables and instead have to make cost benefit decisions based on best available evidence, experience, probabilities and gut instinct. Not only is Covid not a math problem, neither is real life.
 
Desert Hound said:
By the way. You know which state has a big rise in the UK variant?

FL.
Click to expand...
Yes. FL is up to about 30%.

It makes it hard to compare FL to other states, for the same reason as socal. Different variant, but same logic.

If you want to bet on TX/FL versus CA, you'll have to define what you mean by "different". If FL ha 30% higher cases in early April, does that count as "same" or "different"?

And CA is opening indoor dining, so the comparison may be moot. It is not unlikely that we see 3 different outcomes, but one set of policies.
 
Desert Hound said:
By the way. We will watch TX and the other open states. Based on what we have seen over the last yr, there won't be a spike.

References...90% percent of kids are in schools in FL and TX. CA is about 5%

These states didn't shut down restaurants and biz. CA did.

Today all are about equal.

CA screwed the pooch.

Oh yeah the latest excuse for the reason the numbers are the same is that CA has a variant. Well FL does too. In theory their UK variant is worse vs the standard one as well.

Either way in about 4-6 weeks I lay money TX/FL don't have numbers and different vs CA.

At that point what will @dad4 have to say?

He out a marker out per say when he said TX abandoning masks and allow biz full capacity was a big problem.

We are just weeks away from seeing what happens...right?
Click to expand...
With respect to schools, I mostly agree. CA could and should have opened schools months ago.

Of course, the smart way to do it is in cohorts. Unfortunately, at many schools, the teachers aren't exactly polymaths. Asking them to cover 6 topics is kind of crazy.

With respect to Dad4 predictions, I will make my own, thanks. My December line held up until early March when indoor dining opened and invalidated the assumptions. I think I did pretty well with that one.

Current Dad4 prediction is a small national bump in April, topping out between 100k and 150k cases per day. CA prediction is we hang out at the red/purple boundary : more than 4 and less then 14 cases per 100k per day. CA Prediction becomes invalid if indoor dining, amusement parks, and stadiums stay open as cases rise.
 
dad4 said:
Quick analysis of b.1.117 (UK variant), and the next 2 months.

Nationally- number of cases is doubling a bit faster than once per two weeks. (R = 1.4 or so.). Currently at 15K or so cases per day. Expect it to continue doubling until vaccines cover enough additional people to counteract the higher R. That is, we need to vaccinate 4/14 of those who are not yet immune. 2/7 x .84 = another 24% of the country. 80 M more people vaccinated. 2 months before it turns around for vaccines. 4 more doublings. 120K cases per day peak.

Big things I missed: 1- recovered b.1.117 cases will bring the peak lower. 2- Any vaccinations will slow the doubling, even if we don’t get to 80M more. 3- Over excited reopening will make the peak go higher. I am treating these as offsetting each other, but I suspect the third factor is bigger than the first or second.

California- b.1.117 has stalled at 15% of cases. Dad guess is that b.1.117 can’t make further inroads because it isn’t much stronger than the already dominant LA variant. If true, it means CA won’t have a b.1.117 peak. However, CA is opening dining, theaters, and stadiums, so expect case counts to remain high for a while. Case counts can’t go up too far without putting us back in purple and closing it all down again.

So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)

Be glad the line for soccer is at 14 instead of at yellow. With dining open, I am no longer optimistic that we can hit yellow this spring.

(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
Click to expand...
"2/7 x .84"

Are you are saying only 16% of the nation is currently immune? A higher percentage than that already has their first shot (about 17.5%). Don't people that already had it also "count"?
 
dad4 said:
So, another national peak in the 100K-150K cases per day range. CA hanging out at the red/purple boundary. (Cases go down, open something stupid. Our stupid thing forces cases back up, close down the stupid. Repeat.)

(again, not an epidemiologist. So don’t take this too seriously.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is kind of weak, @dad4. Below is what real epidemiologists are predicting. We should take him seriously, right?

www.rollingstone.com

Epidemiologist Warns a Covid-19 'Hurricane Is Coming' With New Variant

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm issued dire warnings about the potential spread of the new, more contagious Covid-19 variants.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

Osterholm predicted that B117, the more contagious strain of the virus that is sweeping England and has been found in pockets of the United States, will become the dominant strain of the virus in the country. “If we see that happen, which my 45 years in the trenches tell us we will, we are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” he said. “That hurricane is coming. We have to understand that because of this surge, we do have to call an audible.”

The epidemiologist said if we see a surge of the new variant this spring, it will be worse than the previous surges. “We saw our health care system literally on the edge of not being able to provide care,” Osterholm said. “Imagine if we have what has happened in England, twice as many of those cases
 
kickingandscreaming said:
"2/7 x .84"

Are you are saying only 16% of the nation is currently immune? A higher percentage than that already has their first shot (about 17.5%). Don't people that already had it also "count"?
Click to expand...

This is my critique as well. By all indications people that have had it have at least partial immunity. There haven’t been a lot of reinfections in the uk from the group that got it early on.

I do think he is right there will be another surge in the us (based alone on what’s happening in europe. Interestingly hard hit Belgium Spain and Switzerland are not part of the surge). Florida is a likely candidate not just because of variants but because of the seasonality effect.
 
Grace T. said:
This is my critique as well. By all indications people that have had it have at least partial immunity. There haven’t been a lot of reinfections in the uk from the group that got it early on.

I do think he is right there will be another surge in the us (based alone on what’s happening in europe. Interestingly hard hit Belgium Spain and Switzerland are not part of the surge). Florida is a likely candidate not just because of variants but because of the seasonality effect.
Click to expand...
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised to see another "surge" such as @dad4 predicts. The sad thing is there will be a lot of older folks who declined the vaccine that will needlessly die if we have any surge. We'll see the rate of death for those that had the vaccine and those that didn't. I don't believe that will be pretty. There will also likely be older folks that get it from healthcare workers who had the opportunity to get the vaccine and refused.
 
About whether people who have already had it also count:

They would count, if we knew who they are. For most of them, we do not know.

As a result, when we vaccinate, we don't get to choose whether we vaccinate people with natural immunity. We vaccinate the immune and non-immune equally, without knowing which is which.

We have 16% who have been vaccinated. The other 84% are, in some sense, in line for the vaccine. The remaining infectable population lies within that 84%.

If you want to innoculate 2/7 of the infectable population, you do that by innoculating 2/7 of the people in line for the vaccine. (Some of whom were already immune, but didn't know it.). That's how I got 2/7 of 84%.

Now, if we are delaying vaccines for all known recovered patients, then 84% is the wrong number. It's more like 75%, because you get to subtract out known recovered patients before you start vaccinating. This would drop the peak slightly.
 
dad4 said:
About whether people who have already had it also count:

They would count, if we knew who they are. For most of them, we do not know.

As a result, when we vaccinate, we don't get to choose whether we vaccinate people with natural immunity. We vaccinate the immune and non-immune equally, without knowing which is which.

We have 16% who have been vaccinated. The other 84% are, in some sense, in line for the vaccine. The remaining infectable population lies within that 84%.

If you want to innoculate 2/7 of the infectable population, you do that by innoculating 2/7 of the people in line for the vaccine. (Some of whom were already immune, but didn't know it.). That's how I got 2/7 of 84%.

Now, if we are delaying vaccines for all known recovered patients, then 84% is the wrong number. It's more like 75%, because you get to subtract out known recovered patients before you start vaccinating. This would drop the peak slightly.
Click to expand...
Apparently in California at least the advice is no vaccine if you’ve had covid in the last 90 days. My friend was scheduled to have the shot next week but came down with covid two weeks ago and his appointment canceled through his employer. I don’t know however how tough the screening questions are or if the protocol is the same in all states.
 
dad4 said:
About whether people who have already had it also count:

They would count, if we knew who they are. For most of them, we do not know.

As a result, when we vaccinate, we don't get to choose whether we vaccinate people with natural immunity. We vaccinate the immune and non-immune equally, without knowing which is which.

We have 16% who have been vaccinated. The other 84% are, in some sense, in line for the vaccine. The remaining infectable population lies within that 84%.

If you want to innoculate 2/7 of the infectable population, you do that by innoculating 2/7 of the people in line for the vaccine. (Some of whom were already immune, but didn't know it.). That's how I got 2/7 of 84%.

Now, if we are delaying vaccines for all known recovered patients, then 84% is the wrong number. It's more like 75%, because you get to subtract out known recovered patients before you start vaccinating. This would drop the peak slightly.
Click to expand...
We are primarily vaccinating old folks. We know they didn't already have it because they are still alive to get it. C'mon man, you didn't really say, "they would count if we know who they were", did you? You created an upper bound. Why don't you finish your analysis and give a lower bound?
 
kickingandscreaming said:
We are primarily vaccinating old folks. We know they didn't already have it because they are still alive to get it. C'mon man, you didn't really say, "they would count if we know who they were", did you? You created an upper bound. Why don't you finish your analysis and give a lower bound?
Click to expand...
2/7 of .75 is about 22% instead of 24%.

Works out about the same. Moves it up a few days.

The other compromises and numeric cheats I made are much worse than that one. That's why I don't treat it as an upper or lower bound. It was a crude SWAG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top