You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly jock culture doesn't help lead more kids into the sciences, but I think you put too much blame on it. We, nerds, love to play sports too, but perhaps, we're just not as good at it! Personally, I think a majority of the blame goes to parenting, or the lack of guidance from our parents.
This piece is a really good catch, and very solid thinking - those who haven't seen or who have been busy trying to calculate IFR might take a closer look at this in Scientific American: So How Deadly Is COVID-19?
Dr Dalton makes a series of cogent statements towards the end of the piece (although he is far too kind to Ioannidas in mentioning that his study was "ferociously criticized"):
"So, the mortality rate, instead of being a fixed number that distills the true essence of the virus’s danger, is actually a protean, organic, fluid metric. The rate of fatalities among COVID-19 cases “is not a biological constant,” according to a team of Oxford researchers. “Instead, it reflects the severity of the disease in a particular context, at a particular time, in a particular population.” Even with perfect data, the mortality rate is a living number, changing all the time, that is in part a reflection of ourselves. With these limitations in mind, we should be wary of using any one estimate of mortality in shaping our response to the pandemic."
But from my perspective as an emergency physician, precisely how deadly the virus is doesn’t matter right now, because the virus is deadly enough. I’ve stood on the front lines of the pandemic, and I know that this virus is no house cat. Every day for weeks, my colleagues and I have faced wave after wave of COVID patients in their 30s, 50s or 80s, many of them extraordinarily ill. Some of these people have died. Its virulence is astonishing, at least among hospitalized patients. Experienced physicians know that this is nothing like the flu."
Things are looking better than I thought in Alameda County. Finally found their test data on their second dashboard. The positivity is going down, and hospitalizations are trending down, so that is good. They might just be able to get a handle on it as things reopen again, and increased testing makes it more likely that people who are at risk of being infected won't walk into the Tesla factory.
Source: http://www.acphd.org/2019-ncov.aspx
Hopefully people are good about wearing their masks & eye shields.
View attachment 548307View attachment 548311 View attachment 548313View attachment 548312
This site has had the projections I trust the most right from when they launched, but I don’t think they’ve nailed the processes for the reopening phase yet.
The protests will be good information, if the stats stay relatively unmoved the rest of the reopening over the summer is unlikely to move the needle either.
That is a big shock to the disease transmission system, a whole highly connected sub population just springs into existence. Assuming the US doesn’t do the dumbest thing I’ve heard discussed which is k-12 remote learning. The childcare role of school is critical for the rest of the economy imo.
Also there was sort of a peak on May 30, and coming down from that peak doesn't (yet) mean it is going down in general.
I'm not that sure about how much the protests will move it relative to other reopening. I can't figure out how many people are protesting nationwide, but perhaps it is in the low single millions (I have no idea - it's clearly a very large movement but not sure the numbers are well known right now)? A few million is a relatively small number compared to the number of people who will eventually need to go back to work. And they're outside, mostly young (so maybe asymptomatic and perhaps less contagious and possibly even less vulnerable). So I think it's likely to be a less serious driver of outbreaks than the general reopening. I'm sure there will be cases associated with them...but how many I'm not sure.
We'll see. I think we're already seeing the numbers move in some states, and that is very likely not due to the protests - it is too early.
Their projections trend up slightly from here only to peak in August and fall presumably due to low herd immunity required when R_t is so close to 1 to bring it back under one. This site has had the projections I trust the most right from when they launched, but I don’t think they’ve nailed the processes for the reopening phase yet. It’s so up in the air might be best to treat the modeling as several separate, possible scenarios.
It’s funny that the people protesting/rioting in the streets are the same hypocrites who were going on and on about social distancing and shitting all over Elon for wanting to reopen Fremont.
I can't really follow this train of thought. How do "experienced physicians" know it is "nothing like the flu", if not by making making a quantitative analysis similar to calculating IFR? By looking only at the CFR in their own personal office?
What did "Oxford" produce on this question? I remember one report that made a mess of quoting other studies without critical evaluation, and apparent errors in looking at the chinese numbers (previous post on this thread). This article is a similar mess, not even making a distinction between IFR and CFR, and giving most space to the debunked Stanford study. I don't understand why this article is in the Scientific American? It seems hardly newspaper quality.
It has to be more than herd immunity. They show TX new infections peaking on July 3rd with cumulative infections on that date of only 1.6%. They show TX Rt at 1.04, down from 1.06 in mid-May. I don't see how a sub-2% immune population reduced R by more than 6%. Their model has picked up (or was force-fed) some other improvement in R.Their projections trend up slightly from here only to peak in August and fall presumably due to low herd immunity required when R_t is so close to 1 to bring it back under one.
You clearly didn't read this piece very closely. Sorry you didn't like it but he actually makes a very careful distinction between case fatality rate and IFR. And since he is a physician he's talking about the clinical presentation of illness which is distinct from influenza something you would not know because you're not a clinician. You do not see kidney failure, pathological clotting, strokes, and the like in influenza (regrettably he did not go into details on these clinical issues). Not sure what turned you off but I thought you jumped the gun on this one.
This is what happens when idiots play the game of telephone. Go back to the original source. Michigan is using more accurate numbers now. Twitter poster lies and says people testing negative are being counted in Covid death toll. Reality is untested people with classic Covid symptoms like glassy lung are counted.Michigan is pumping up it's numbers https://twitter.com/Louisbotelho17/status/1269024881175334919?s=19