Stubborn COVID data (infected, symptom, recover, viruses)

[Mikala43]

You have to take into consideration onset of symptoms can be two weeks, and then figure another week to maybe require a doctor visit or hospital, then around 18 days in the hospital so if you die the number can be way out there.

You can't look at days or weeks, you have to look at the general trend over time.

Just look at Italy cases, fatalities on World o meters, you can see the trend, despite dips and spikes.

No reason to "run" numbers, they are all out there done for you.

PLUS, you have all kinds of other factors from reporting, delay in getting testing results (for awhile it was 2 weeks), delay in death certificates, autopsies is done...

[roodd279]

Hi Mikala - totally get all that. Someone else (a real scientist / dr., not me) already went through all that stuff. The bottom line was - all things considered - it was (on average) 18 days from onset to death. Some people can die soon, some take months, some die soon but aren't reported for months - all true. But - with the 150,000 deaths or so, so far to analyze - 18 days is the average, and that's why I used it. It could change - maybe the average is 20 or 15 or whatever - but the overall point remains: Stay at home works. Data shows it. I'm increasingly discouraged in my fellow human beings who refuse to understand it.
Let me clarify - I am not (necessarily) against re-opening. I am just against any one individual "re-opening" with an incomplete understanding of what's going on. If you truly understand the data - and you choose to resume your normal life (or whatever's left of it) then - that's one thing. But if you tossed away your mask and quit washing your hands because your neighbor said "It was OK!!!" then that's bad.
It happens all the time, lots of reasons, lots of cases, lots of issues - but it has never - ever - before been such a literal matter of life and death to so many people at the same time. That's why "trusting your buddy" - and by that I mean, your mom, you kid, your friends, your boss, the news, the president - anyone - without trying to educate yourself away from them - is just bordering on irresponsible. Take the time. Read the stuff. Try to understand it. Alot of it. Then make smart decisions. Then at least you know - whatever happens - you did the smartest thing you could do, whatever that thing is.
(Before anyone flames me for that - don't bother - you should hear my wife right now...hehehe....)

[Mikala43]

Honestly, I thought you were against social isolation.

But yes, it works. We didn't do a good job, we will not see great results.

But it is what it is, and we if take all reasonable measures ourselves, we can keep ourselves safer no matter how stupid others may be.

In the beginning most economists agreed, you have to deal with the pandemic, the economy would fix itself. But we didn't really do that, now deaths and economic problems will limp along until the vaccine.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by roodd279

I averaged the "rate of dead" - that's the percent more today, than yesterday - for the 18 days starting on the "stay at home" day - so the first number is an average of 18 data points. The 2nd number is the average of however many points were between Day 18 and today, varies by state. But the trend is clear enough. ...

If you still doubt the lockdown worked: No problem. We'll agree to disagree. In about 18 days, we'll know soon enough, from every place that's opening back up today. (I'm talking about you, Jacksonville Beach.)

Your analysis is correct. Disagreement comes not in the math, but in the interpretation of the math. Yes, there is a lag between taking measures, and the efficacy of said measures. In a similar way, if/when the country “opens up”, there will be a lag in the rise of death-count. For the first several days, everything will be fantastic. Then, 3 weeks later, we’ll start seeing a steady (or sudden?) rise.

There’s also the effect of moving-averages… such a filter is itself laggy… but almost certainly, you knew that. There are advanced filtering-methods that eliminate lag, but this isn’t the math-forum.

So what is the disagreement? The disagreement is in whether the benefits justify the costs. That topic perhaps belongs more in the Politics forum. But I am responding to your post here, simply to note, that we can agree that the data is correct, and even agree that the analytical method is correct – and yet, vehemently disagree on what course of action ought to be prompted by the data.

[roodd279]

Well said, Ohio Peasant! I didn't put it in politics, because a) this is about making health decisions, i.e., is social distancing helpful and b) The politics forum is totally nutty. Few serious thinkers over there. I felt more comfortable here ;D


Thanks for backing up my data - yes, there is all kinds of fuzzy-ness in my super-simple analysis. I didn't want to go all "moving-average" - it just clouds the issue and results in the same conclusion - a conclusion that, by any analysis - was already evident: It's contagious. We want to slow the Spread. So Stay Home. Seems obvious - yet, unlike you - many people absolutely disagree. Not about the course of action. But about the necessity. At all. Avoidance. Contagion. Seems like witchcraft to them. Weird.



The benefit - cost analysis - eh, that's one for the ages. I do think comparing the current numbers with the current cost is a little bit unhelpful - the decisions were made based on the potential numbers. It was a risk. A gamble. The debate about whether is was warranted will likely never be solved - except in a very bad way.


Mikala - I'm not against "sensible" isolation - I think it's clear the thing is contagious, and if you're vulnerable, you should be cognizant of that and take precautions. I also think it's clear asymptomatic carriers can spread it to vulnerable people, and should be cognizant of that as well.


Beating this dead horse: My father (age 85) has health issues. When I am ill - the flu, a cold, whatever - I don't go near him. We call - not visit - and that's that. Everyone agrees. Everyone understands. But this: I don't know when I have it. I can't avoid him forever. It's a strange situation.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by roodd279

Beating this dead horse: My father (age 85) has health issues. When I am ill - the flu, a cold, whatever - I don't go near him. We call - not visit - and that's that. Everyone agrees. Everyone understands. But this: I don't know when I have it. I can't avoid him forever. It's a strange situation.

I had this conversation with a friend whose 93-year-old grandmother is in assisted living. It's a moot point at the moment, because no visitors are allowed in right now under any circumstances, including imminent death of the resident. But think about it. None of us (or almost none) knows the chances that we are right now harboring this virus as an asymptomatic carrier. Let's be generous and say that right now in our city, 10% of people are carriers and 90% are not.

So if the friend goes to visit her 93-year-old grandmother, there's about a 10% chance she could expose the elderly lady to the virus. If she catches it, at her age there is a pretty good chance it would kill her, even though she's a reasonably healthy old lady. Say 20%. So what is 20% of 10%...2%. There's about a 2% chance that going to visit would result in the grandmother's death.*

On the other hand, if she chooses to stay on the safe side and never goes to see her grandmother ever again, what are the chances that the old lady will eventually die anyway? 100%.

I can only speak for myself here. I've already lost all of my elderly relatives (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles), so again this is hypothetical, but IF one of them were still alive and in their 90s, and asked me to come visit one more time, if they were okay with taking the chance, I would be there in a heartbeat. For me, the 2% chance of making them ill would be overridden by the absolute certainty that they don't have a whole lot of time left and this could be our last chance to see each other.



*Yes, I know people can and will jump all over my statistics and math. Stay with me here; this is more about principles than precise numbers.

[steiconi]

Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012

City-Data DOES host pictures; just create an album (personally, I have several albums) and upload your photos to it. Then when you want to put one in a thread, simply copy and paste from your album. I do this ALL THE TIME and it works fine -- no need to post links to other sites (we found out how crappy that could work when a major photo-hosting site suddenly decided to start chargine people hundreds of dollars a year, so LOTS of photos disappeared because who wanted to pay that?!).

Thanks, I didn't know that. Sorry for posting misinformation.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by steiconi

Thanks, I didn't know that. Sorry for posting misinformation.

No problem; I think a lot of people don't realize how easy it is to do pictures on C-D.

This is a really interesting thread. I am working at home and wondering if our campus will be open this coming fall or if we'll still be doing online teaching. I like teaching in person MUCH better so I am hoping things will have calmed down by late summer, but the prospects don't look great ...

[crusinsusan]

rood....I really like trying to suss out you're math, even if ya did confuse some of us with your writing Anyway, thanks for the work. (And your patience, which greatly exceeds mine! )

Originally Posted by saibot

....if they were okay with taking the chance, I would be there in a heartbeat.

I think most of us would go visit said elderly person in a heartbeat. So I don't understand if there's a question, or what point you're trying to make?

[guidoLaMoto]

This animation shows the effect of "social distancing" to reduce the infection rate. The blue line is the number of people susceptible to get the infection, the green line the number recovered. the orange line is the number of active cases….Note that as the rate of infection is lowered, the number of susceptible stays high, longer, and the number of recovered stays low, longer.....Would you rather get hit with a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?


Add in consideration of prolonged economic hardship caused by sheltering, and maybe we should just concede that there will be a certain number of deaths either way and open things up and take our lumps. At least we'll be able to afford paying for the funerals then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathem...ctious_disease (If the graph isn't moving by itself for you, go to the source on Wiki)