Coronavirus

[omgwtfbyobbq]

That would be true for total deaths if the assumption was that most of the population would be infected. I'm talking about deaths per day which should be less certain farther in the future.
Their model is predicting that an insignificant percentage of the population gets infected (about 0.5%-1%?) in California.

The higher certainty in deaths per day later could just be because most of the country is under shelter in place orders now, which at some point should lead to a fairly predictable rate of infection and IFR. Before the IFR stabilizes, it would be affected by what regions implemented shelter in place orders and when they did that along with different rates of spread depending on region, which would lead to more uncertainty about the rate of infection and IFR.

 

[SMAlset]

Ok I know this is from the NYPost but thought the story of how doctors at Mt.Sinai Hospital in Manhattan were able to modify Elon/Tesla’s donated apnea machines was worth linking to.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/manhattan-doctor-puts-elon-musks-apnea-masks-to-use/

 

[MC3OZ]

This seems unusual:-https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-...se-ship-have-coronavirus-20200408-p54i1d.html

Of 217 people tested on the vessel, 128 were positive for the virus that causes the COVID-2019 disease and 89 tested negative, Aurora Expeditions said.

"There are currently no fevers on board and all are asymptomatic," said Aurora Expeditions, the Australian operator of the Greg Mortimer ship that is working to disembark the crew and passengers and arrange flights to their home countries.

128 out of 128 asymptomatic seems high, I'm not 100% sure, but I think this boat has been on the water for some weeks.,

It looks like a few people did develop more serious cases and were taken off the ship.

The initial infected patient must have come on board at the start of the trip unless passengers and crew members have joined mid trip.

Uruguay to repatriate Australian passengers from Covid-19 stricken ship

The Greg Mortimer has been anchored 20km off the coast of Uruguay since 27 March, but authorities in the South American country had until now refused to allow passengers to disembark.

The $65m ship set out on 15 March from the Argentinian port of Ushuaia, the southernmost city in the world.

 

[BobbyKings]

Can anybody judge if there is any truth in this?

Attention Required!

 

[Daniel in SD]

The higher certainty in deaths per day later could just be because most of the country is under shelter in place orders now, which at some point should lead to a fairly predictable rate of infection and IFR. Before the IFR stabilizes, it would be affected by what regions implemented shelter in place orders and when they did that along with different rates of spread depending on region, which would lead to more uncertainty about the rate of infection and IFR.

The deaths per day is a function of the true number of cases. Their model says that there will be 67 deaths on April 15th with a 95% confidence interval of 7-372. That means they have huge uncertainty about the true number of cases right now. If you don't know the number of cases now how can you possibly know the number of cases in the future? Unless you're assuming that the R0 drops to zero.

 

[SVMike]

The clearer picture will emerge when 200,000 patient multi-drug WHO monitored study gets complete. Until then, everything is experimental.

BTW, from what I see (on r/COVID19 where actual frontline doctors post) - almost everyone is being given HCQ etc in NYC with little benefit to show. Problem seems to be - if the person is critical, it doesn't seem to help. If the person is not critical, how do we know it helped (if the person gets discharged) ?

That is why we have double blind studies with a control group.

 

[ByeByeJohnny]

In Denmark they are starting to loosen their restrictions after Eastern. Among other things preschools and up to 5th grade is going back to school.

Apparently they are worried not enough people are getting infected to build a herd immunity if everybody is isolated all the time.

As a Swede with a lot loser restrictions than most countries I have no idea which approach is the smartest. But as someone who very likely had the virus and have recovered I know more people need to get immune or there will be new outbreaks as soon as isolation is lifted.

No one knows if 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 or 20% of any given population has been infected. That needs to be solved before anyone will know when life can go back to something similar to normal. And that number better be a lot higher than 1 or 2% or nothing will have been accomplished. Except ruining the economy.

 

[Bet TSLA]

That is medical science.

I would argue that it is more medical practice than medical science. There's a ton of practice and a little science.

There are many professional photographers who know all sorts of esoteric stuff about photography and use all sorts of amazing equipment. And yet it turns out that the number of great pictures that a person takes is pretty much a small fraction of the total pictures taken by that person. And the fraction doesn't seem to change all that much no matter how professional you get. You want to take more great photos? Then take more photos.

Maybe talk to someone who 'beat' cancer. Did not just happen.

Sure. Me, I've "beat cancer" three times now. Certainly my doctors helped. But if I had relied on them to do the right thing I'd be dead several times over. I took their advice, modified it to my desires, and decided what treatment I'd be using. I particularly remember one exchange with my head & neck surgeon when he said that he thought there were some doctors who wouldn't think my proposal completely crazy. He went along with it. In any case, I had (mostly) really good cancer doctors, and they all admitted they were doing the best they could with (effectively) stone knives and axes.

It's been almost twenty years since my most recent cancer. I still won't be surprised if it kills me in the end. Meanwhile, it's worth reading The Emperor of All Maladies. It's pretty clear from reading that how hard it is to do any science in the field of medicine.

 

[Beltsbear]

Can anybody judge if there is any truth in this?

Attention Required!

Yes. This is entirely plausible. More than one doctor has come to this conclusion. Experimenting with blood transfusions could give more answers.

 

[dfwatt]

That approach would last somewhere between five minutes and a year or two. First, the AI will learn very quickly, developing judgment better than the doctor's. The best the doctor could do would be to provide additional information. Second, what doctor will be willing to second guess an AI and get sued, when just following the AI's recommendation provides protection from any second-guessing?



A few successes amongst massive failure to cure disease. Not impressed. You realize that medicine as a field has only started to try to do science in the last century or so, right? Before that it was strictly a craft, a practice. Mostly it still is. Which is why I said (by analogy) that I'll go with the guy who builds the best chairs, not the guy who has done lots of chair research and thinks he has some cool designs for better chairs.



Oh, I'm clueless enough. But I'm also not busy putting other people's lives in danger. And yes, I'll happily assault an entire field when it is failing. It's the only moral thing to do. Meanwhile, remember Sturgeon's Law. That 90% of all medical science is crap is pretty much typical. It would do you well to remember that.



AI is not "computer models", which pretty much makes the rest of your comment irrelevant.



I see you are not averse to providing commentary on fields you know nothing about. Perhaps you should take your own advice and refrain in order to avoid looking ridiculous. Pretty much all of our jobs are going away over the next few decades because they will be performed much better by AI. Doctors will be among the earlier ones (pathologists and radiologists and surgeons are already on their way out), in part because humans do such an awful job and other humans so desperately want a really good job to be done. So... incentive.

Here's a paper from DeepMind about AlphaZero that y'all might find interesting. It makes it clear that in order to win the game you don't try to understand the game; instead you build a superior mind and let it figure it out. This is not your father's programming. Tesla is doing the same thing for autonomous driving, which is coming soon too. They were slowed down in that they had to build a visual perception system first, but it looks like they have that now so progress should be more rapid.

Doubling down on your contempt for other fields that you know nothing about and spending a lot of words doing so does not a viable post make. Does expose you for who you are.

 

[wdolson]

I find it very disturbing the U.S. seems to have no plan for 2020 H2. This article does a great job in describing my worries. Please, please can someone tell me that behind the scenes, the Federal government has plans in place and we will be ready to roll in June?
There Is No Plan for the End of the Coronavirus Crisis

The feds don't really have much of a plan for next week. The feds are still flapping around like they were with Katrina two days after the storm.

I am hoping that Fremont can reopen by May 1 or at least May 15. If the peak in deaths in CA is April 17 and the IHME model is correct then maybe key industries would be allowed to start back up with proper precautions. If Elon could obtain tests and masks for every worker it seems reasonable that it would be allowed.

View attachment 530093



IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Looks like Carl T. Bergstrom is mostly in agreement with the concerns raised here about the IHME model.

It's not a mechanistic, physical model. So it's got problems.

Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter

Models of disease transmission have a large element of human behavior mixed in. No model of this virus' spread is going to be perfect because too many humans are in the loop. One idiot governor sitting on their hands when they should be taking action can make the difference between a mild and massive outbreak in a state.

I think the IHME model has some accuracy predicting outcomes in places where the infection rate is relatively well known and there isolation is in place and working. From the start I was highly skeptical of other parts of the country where isolation was either not implemented, or only halfway implemented and parts of the country that were still early in their infection cycles.

There are many places in the US that are just getting started and the model is completely useless for those regions.

Another problem I have with the IHME model is the single peak in each place. With a disease like this with 0 herd immunity at the start and probably more contagious than the common cold (long incubation period in which the person is contagious combined with a large number of asymptomatic cases is almost the perfect storm for spreadability), social isolation works to slow the spread. But because some humans still need to be out and about and some humans will break the rules, it will not die out, just die down during isolation. As soon as isolation restrictions are lifted, the disease will come back.

The Chinese are claiming all new infections are from travelers coming into the country, but that is not true and they are almost certainly downplaying the numbers as the virus starts spreading again.

When states ease restrictions it will start growing again until we reach herd immunity or we have a vaccine.

In Denmark they are starting to loosen their restrictions after Eastern. Among other things preschools and up to 5th grade is going back to school.

Apparently they are worried not enough people are getting infected to build a herd immunity if everybody is isolated all the time.

As a Swede with a lot loser restrictions than most countries I have no idea which approach is the smartest. But as someone who very likely had the virus and have recovered I know more people need to get immune or there will be new outbreaks as soon as isolation is lifted.

No one knows if 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 or 20% of any given population has been infected. That needs to be solved before anyone will know when life can go back to something similar to normal. And that number better be a lot higher than 1 or 2% or nothing will have been accomplished. Except ruining the economy.

I think I've had it too (two doctors I've consulted agree), but I can't get the antibody test yet. When we can get antibody tests we need to let those with the antibody have freer reign to move about society. People who are unemployed, but have the antibody can be hired to do jobs that might expose them to the virus and allow the economy to get a bit back on track.

Though I think the number of people who have had it and recovered is still a fairly small percentage.

 

[MC3OZ]

wdolson said: ↑

Computer models can only be as good as the data going into them. We understand some phenomenon very well and we can make excellent computer models. But some things are very difficult to model.

What networked computers can do that doctors can't is, have 100% of the current worldwide data set more or less updated in real time.

If the AI initially only helps the doctor find the most relevant set of data that is a big help... while using the data set doctors are updating the data set.

Any clinical trials also update the data set... the AI learns similar to FSD, initially doctors must tell it when it is wrong, and it also learns that from outcomes.... the more it learns the better it gets which means it is also giving the doctor more relevant data.

Clearly this is a hypothetical discussion and not that relevant at present as it isn't something we can implement quickly, so I will not post more on this.

 

[bkp_duke]

I see you are not averse to providing commentary on fields you know nothing about. Perhaps you should take your own advice and refrain in order to avoid looking ridiculous. Pretty much all of our jobs are going away over the next few decades because they will be performed much better by AI. Doctors will be among the earlier ones (pathologists and radiologists and surgeons are already on their way out), in part because humans do such an awful job and other humans so desperately want a really good job to be done. So... incentive.

How do you know I don't know anything about it? I'm probably one of the most "information hungry" people you . . . will never meet.

I have an M.D., a Ph.D. (both obtained under full scholarship) and I have since retired from medicine to have a better family life. I have worked on (programmed) a molecular graphics package, and now I currently own and run a company in the datacenter services space. I manage a programming team . . . well daily. I'm literally, neck deep with AI.

And just like all things programming related, with AI, it's all about how good you model and program. Otherwise garbage in = garbage out.


So, you should be careful in your assumptions. You assumed I didn't know jack about AI and didn't have first-hand experience. As they say - assumption is the mother of all @#$% ups. Oh, I also have to run both the finances and operations for my company (the joys of being a small business), so I'm happy to comment on how the current economic environment is BRUTAL for small businesses.

 

[EVNow]

Tesla is doing the same thing for autonomous driving, which is coming soon too. They were slowed down in that they had to build a visual perception system first, but it looks like they have that now so progress should be more rapid.

Sigh.

 

[Bet TSLA]

Doubling down on your contempt for other fields that you know nothing about and spending a lot of words doing so does not a viable post make. Does expose you for who you are.

Who I am is somebody who is not much impressed with human efforts in the face of an uncaring universe. Also not impressed with people who lack humility. So just what makes a viable post in your universe? I'm sorry to hear mine don't float your boat.

 

[Daniel in SD]

In Denmark they are starting to loosen their restrictions after Eastern. Among other things preschools and up to 5th grade is going back to school.

Apparently they are worried not enough people are getting infected to build a herd immunity if everybody is isolated all the time.

As a Swede with a lot loser restrictions than most countries I have no idea which approach is the smartest. But as someone who very likely had the virus and have recovered I know more people need to get immune or there will be new outbreaks as soon as isolation is lifted.

No one knows if 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 or 20% of any given population has been infected. That needs to be solved before anyone will know when life can go back to something similar to normal. And that number better be a lot higher than 1 or 2% or nothing will have been accomplished. Except ruining the economy.

It's good to hear from someone in Sweden! Your country is certainly taking a different approach than other countries. There should be more antibody tests soon to determine the true infection numbers. Is your country expanding hospital capacity to deal with the surge in cases?

 

[EinSV]

A new paper is out from Los Alamos National Lab estimating R0 at 5.7 (95% Confidence Interval 3.8–8.9) based on early infections in Wuhan.

This implies a high level of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic cases, but also would require 82% of the population to develop immunity to achieve herd immunity.

High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

 

[bkp_duke]

A new paper is out from Los Alamos National Lab estimating R0 at 5.7 (95% Confidence Interval 3.8–8.9) based on early infections in Wuhan.

This implies a high level of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic cases, but also would require 82% of the population to develop immunity to achieve herd immunity.

High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

Be very interesting to see a year from now, when the dataset is far more robust, where R0 and IFR settle out. Will also be extremely interesting to see the susceptibilities of different populations (sex, age, race, behaviors - smoking, etc.). We have some indication of some of those already, but some are far more murky.

 

[abasile]

Can anyone here propose a reasonably probable thesis which involves a quick recovery (say, starting in May?) without significant long term economic impact? What would that look like? I see people here every now and again saying "we'll open up again in May," but I haven't seen anything well supported yet.

As surprised as I've been by the current strength of the stock market, I really have no idea what the overall market is going to do during the coming months. At the same time, I wouldn't be too quick to call the market irrational.

As for Tesla, the publicly traded company that many of us know best, we know that there is going to be pain over the coming months due to the factory shutdowns, drop in consumer confidence, and the diminished use of cars while we're all stuck at home. On the other hand, the share price is generally supposed to be a reflection of the company's long term value, and nearly all indications are that Tesla wins in the long run. In the end, this crisis may actually serve to accelerate Tesla's dominance in the auto industry. I could go into more detail, but then this post would belong in the main investor thread!

Like Tesla, many other good companies arguably still have bright futures in spite of the near term pain that we expect. Businesses that depend on large gatherings of people (travel, sports, entertainment, etc.) will suffer for longer than others. However, people with disposable income will generally continue to spend money, provided consumer confidence doesn't drop too terribly. If a given family doesn't take an expensive vacation or buy tickets to large events, that money can be used for other purposes such as home remodeling, buying a new Tesla, setting up a home theater, installing solar, etc.

With all of the money being printed, borrowed, and poured into the economy, I would not be surprised to see people start spending real money as restrictions on movement get eased. People are eager to enjoy life, even if they can't do everything they once did, at least until a vaccine is in wide use.

 

[bkp_duke]

I would argue that it is more medical practice than medical science. There's a ton of practice and a little science.

There are many professional photographers who know all sorts of esoteric stuff about photography and use all sorts of amazing equipment. And yet it turns out that the number of great pictures that a person takes is pretty much a small fraction of the total pictures taken by that person. And the fraction doesn't seem to change all that much no matter how professional you get. You want to take more great photos? Then take more photos.


Sure. Me, I've "beat cancer" three times now. Certainly my doctors helped. But if I had relied on them to do the right thing I'd be dead several times over. I took their advice, modified it to my desires, and decided what treatment I'd be using. I particularly remember one exchange with my head & neck surgeon when he said that he thought there were some doctors who wouldn't think my proposal completely crazy. He went along with it. In any case, I had (mostly) really good cancer doctors, and they all admitted they were doing the best they could with (effectively) stone knives and axes.

It's been almost twenty years since my most recent cancer. I still won't be surprised if it kills me in the end. Meanwhile, it's worth reading The Emperor of All Maladies. It's pretty clear from reading that how hard it is to do any science in the field of medicine.

And now we have the true impetus for these posts that appear very anti-doctor biased.

I'm very sorry, truly, that you have had a bad experience with physicians. And to a degree I agree with your posts that medical science (more appropriately biology) is much harder to perform. But to take an extreme side and say all medical research is garbage (paraphrasing) just doesn't bring much to the table for conversation.