You misstated: “So you quote me out of context, I was not referring to the recent models when I wrote what you quoted me on, I was referring to the original BAU models that did not take into account future government policies and peoples reactions to the threat.”

The very first model I referenced was in fact the model that was used to declare virtual house arrest, and it did not take into account any policies, future or past. It was not a recent model, so its use was not out of context. It did not take into account the travel ban. It did not take into account the social distancing that was already policy in my area for a week prior to our house arrest order.

I gave the other examples to show how the failure of these models has propagated throughout this whole cluster bleep, turning us into prisoners in our own homes.

“Stopping flights from infected countries might have prevented the virus arriving in the US and NZ, but social distancing has not proven to “save 90% of the predicted deaths …” ”

So are we in agreement that the models are too terrible to use for making policy?

“… it certainly does slow the rate of transmission and in so doing at least defers infections and the resulting deaths.”

Which is why it was implemented a month and a half before the mass house arrest was ordered. Unfortunately, our leftist leaders directed us to get close to the population most likely to be contagious. A few days after that is when the panic buying and super-cleanliness started in the San Francisco area. A week after that we started practicing the new concept of social distancing, and the week after that we were under house arrest (New York took another week to order mass house arrest). The reduction in hospitalizations in my area came a couple of weeks after the onset of social distancing, so a week of house arrest had not yet been able to have an affect.

“Models are models, they’re never going to and their creators never claim that the models predict the future, I thought the models that projected 100 to 200,000 deaths in the US not far off, given the information, and those models have so far not been disproven.”

Read Robert’s post, above, sometime. They have been proved wrong about the numbers that they gave for the dates they gave them for. If they were not supposed to predict the future, then why are we under house arrest?

What about the models you keep working on to give us your own predictions? Are you not claiming that yours predict the future? If not, then why are you bothering making your models? Why are the experts bothering making models if they don’t claim that they predict the future and that policy should be based upon them? Why are we using them to maintain their policies that keep us locked up in our own homes?

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claims, which appear to have a dearth of scientific support,”

Again, read the above post. The predictions do not match the predictions, which are still being used to keep us under house arrest.

“What my take away from NYS, New Jersey and Michigan is that testing is being used primarily to confirm diagnosis done by other methods, mostly they’re testing people that they already believe to have the virus, how else could they get 41 – 47% positive test results?”

The experts claim that this is such a contagious virus that half of us could already have been infected. To answer your question, that 50% infection rate would produce such a large positive result.

“that would mean: 4.8 x 140,400 = 674,000 people actually infected in NYS.”

Your method/model assumes that all infected people are tested. You get a low result of the number or people infected, because you consider only those who have been diagnosed, not the entire infected population, which remains unknown in your analysis. It could be 50%. For the State of New York, that would be 10 million, not two thirds of a million.

sippin_bourbon asked: “What happens to the economy if say, 5% of your workforce can no longer return to work because their lungs or heart are messed up”

A whole lot less bad happens than would happen if we shut down the other 95% of the economy as well. Oh, wait …

MY mistake, I said death rate per capita…I meant to simply say deaths per capita currently. These are about identical for Washington State ,the U.S., and Sweden. How this changes in a month, we will see.
Most everyone in the country will eventually get exposed( by vaccine if nothing else), get immunity, and mutations will have no more danger than normal flu virus mutation. This is not a super virus…IMO it is simply novel(think bat soup). Are we going to stay shut down forever because of mutation fears?
The human race IS a petri dish, and trying to forestall that reality by continual lock downs is a losing proposition .
The percentage of all people under 50 to develop severe covid-19 lung damage is very small (much much less than your 5 %), and should be expected to be very small . People with auto immune diseases (like myself-which causes most lung damage in this case), should of course take extra precautions including possible self lock down or quality mask usage in public (see your doctor for a fitting).

Herd immunity was not my main argument above, though it has benefits. My main point was
“Nothing i have proposed (except perhaps resumption of physical schooling (perhaps that IS to much)) endangers anyone, except those who may feel no risk or acceptable risk…But more importantly, it does not shut down the economy and much needed job income and national productivity (eg food, energy, clothing, housing, hospitalization and doctor visits.) destroying small businesses and the personal finances of 10’s of million of people.”

i also specifically said “All people under 50 (66 % of the population) , and NOT living with an older person…

I also specifically said”Your objection makes no sense to me… if you want a locked down society then stay locked down (yourself). If I choose to roam outside or go to work (with a good mask) how does this effect you as a practical matter, since you are locked down? Any one who feels threatened by the virus can stay locked down personally, and even keep their children home with home/online schooling if they desire.”

I have answered or even agree with most of your concerns in the original posts, but it is as if you ignore them.

Bottom line..We can get most of the health benefits of a full economic/social forced lock-down without actually enforcing a full lockdown and its economic devastation.
A very light “lock-down” such as perhaps mandating masks in public (forget the 6 foot “social distancing” paranoia ,its ineffective –particles from a sneeze/cough will hang in the air for a long time and you will walk into it and breath it in. Masks for prevention are a much better solution) for a very limited time (maybe 2 months), and perhaps making physical school attendance optional for a very limited time, etc.

So, yes the current forced lockdown approach in the U.S. is about the worst possible with devastating financial results , and the Korean (and Hong Kong) and even Swedish alternates (with a few possible alterations) are examples of much better options..IMO

So i disagree with you to that extent, but will end my discussion there on this thread.

Totally separate from my above argument, I have a concern about allowing the population to be a petri dish.

If you allow a large part of the population to be exposed, what are the chances of an increase of mutation.
The virus is already a mutation from animals. And other species can still get it.
If it mutates significantly again, all of this could start over.

This article is about a month old.
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-survivors-lung-damage-ards-fcim-intensive-care-research-2020-3?op=1

Because it is older, the data may change. But based on what it says the potential damage is more severe than just the flu, as you suggest.

As I stated before, it is still to early to see how long this type of damage takes.
If I can find similar articled on the cardiac damage I will post those..

You stated 66% of the population is under 50. Okay, of those, some would STILL have to stay locked down for the reasons I stated (immunodeficiency in themselves). I have no source for a number, but let assume its small. Say 3 or 4 %. 65 Million, or roughly 18% of the US live in multi-generational households. That knocks down your 66% of the population significantly.

So around than 20% of the the US is either at risk, or lives with someone at risk. These are ball park estimates, so don’t shoot me. But the group that you say should be okay with getting sick so they can develop immunity is now smaller.

What percentage of the population is needed for a disease that has such a high transmission rate among asymptomatic carriers to allow us to attain herd immunity?

Now consider that exposure to the disease can leave someone with a disability. Your 66% is also the prime workforce. What happens to the economy if say, 5% of your workforce can no longer return to work because their lungs or heart are messed up. They cannot work, so they get paid disability instead, which is an economic harm to the system. The recovery from all of this is now pushed out further. The result is the same as Obama’s recovery from the “great recession”, which basically means things will stay stagnant for 4 or 5 years.. again.

I admit it is still too early to know if these damages are as bad as they say. But I don’t think we should gamble people’s livelihoods on it.

Cumulative US deaths would eventually reach 20,000 just over 2 months from now.

I was wildly optimistic.

Now I’m expecting the peak in deaths to be close to 3,000, still about 15 April, total deaths 80,000 – 100,000. I think the drop off in the death toll will be at half the rate of the increase in death toll before the peak, which is what appears to be happening in Italy. I’m basing that on the median time for death in the worst affected states being 7 days after diagnosis but with the mean time for death in the worst affected states being 2 weeks after diagnosis.

Here’s testing figures for some states and countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing#Testing_statistics_by_country

What my take away from NYS, New Jersey and Michigan is that testing is being used primarily to confirm diagnosis done by other methods, mostly they’re testing people that they already believe to have the virus, how else could they get 41 – 47% positive test results? such an approach is not going to identify those infected that do not have very significant symptoms.
That to me strongly suggests that the vast majority of cases in those three states remain undiagnosed.

Most sites are giving a mortality rate by simply dividing deaths to date by cases diagnosed to date, but that method would only make sense if the people that died did so on the same day they were diagnosed. Obviously there’s a delay of several days between diagnosis and death.
For NYS I’ve been working on that delay being just 7 days (other states and countries with positive test rates of 5% or less I see as using the test to locate asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals), and that in NYS the actual mortality rate is ~1.5%, 1.5% being in line with other countries with far better tracking of infected people.

So we divide deaths to date by numbers diagnosed 7 days earlier, for NYS today that’s 5489/75833 = 7.2% fatality rate of diagnosed cases, using the 1.5% that would mean that that the actual number of infected people in NYS 7 days ago would be 7.2 /1.5 = 4.8 times the recorded number = 364,000. If the number infected today is still 4.8 times the number diagnosed infected as of today that would mean: 4.8 x 140,400 = 674,000 people actually infected in NYS.

So you quote me out of context, I was not referring to the recent models when I wrote what you quoted me on, I was referring to the original BAU models that did not take into account future government policies and peoples reactions to the threat.

The model that had us do simple action, such as restricting flights from China and social distancing, showed that such simple actions would save 90% of the predicted deaths.

Stopping flights from infected countries might have prevented the virus arriving in the US and NZ, but social distancing has not proven to “save 90% of the predicted deaths” it certainly does slow the rate of transmission and in so doing at least defers infections and the resulting deaths.
But I’ve made no argument that that would not have been a better approach than the destructive lock-downs anyway, so in terms of government action you’re not making any point that I disagree with.

As it turns out, some of the predictions here in the U.S. were intentionally made in order to scare us into action,

Unless you’re willing to specify which predictions all that claim amounts to is arm waving. Models are models, they’re never going to and their creators never claim that the models predict the future, I thought the models that projected 100 to 200,000 deaths in the US not far off, given the information, and those models have so far not been disproven.

To base policy upon emotion rather than rational thought is how a society gets into trouble.

Indeed, which is why I’ve been taking issue so much with Mr. Zimmerman’s claims, which appear to have a dearth of scientific support, all based on some sort of ideological buy-in on science which will not change to whatever he wishes it to be.

Indeed, the more that we learn that we are under virtual house arrest because of flawed policy making (due to bogus science), the more upset we Americans become at our situation and lost liberty.

I have not disputed that the draconian measures taken by government were not necessary, so addressing that to me is pointless.

Sweden will be a demonstration of what Westerners can do without the imposition of government force, for now the jury is still out, they’re not doing too bad, but the number of infections and deaths (591 vs 89) is starting to outstrip Norway which has gone with more government force, and yes, policies that are more economically damaging in the short term at least.

Mark Levine, Chair of NYC Council health committee, says there used to be 20-25 deaths at home daily in NYC, but there are now 200-215. They assume that a significant number of the increase are due to COVID-19, but lacking the testing capacity to check home fatalities for coronavirus, they are not being reported as such.

And here I was, thinking that testing had ramped up sufficiently to start random testing of asymptomatic individuals in order to finally get a handle of just how widespread the infection is.

In hard hit Washington state the peak death rate was March 27. The death rate is now seemingly already down to a third of that peak. The 1/3 peak to 1/3 peak width of this curve will likely be less than 1 month… and this was with only partial shutdown/social distancing in place …theoretically the width is even smaller under less severe conditions see here:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/coronavirus-peak-apex-statebystate/2020/04/07/id/961754/
and here
https://www.doh.wa.gov/emergencies/coronavirus

I am an at risk person, but I cannot demand the entire society to shut down because of my situation, nor should it. I will perhaps disagree with RZ that temporary MANDATORY use of a mask in public is acceptable to me, in that I do not fundamentally have a right to unknowingly infecting someone elses air in a public place. Unfortunately such mask production (high-quality and mid-quality) has not been an emergency priority for the authorities, even after spending 2 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! So one must be inventive, e.g., reuse an old painting mask and quadruple fold a handkerchief inside and under the perimeter for a pretty good seal and pretty good filtering of microscopic droplets.

Nothing i have proposed (except perhaps resumption of physical schooling (perhaps that IS to much)) endangers anyone, except those who may feel no risk or acceptable risk…But more importantly, it does not shut down the economy and much needed job income and national productivity (eg food, energy, clothing, housing, hospitalization and doctor visits.) destroying small businesses and the personal finances of 10’s of million of people. We are ruining ourselves for no reason…It is amazing to see what has happened in only a month. I don’t think most people understand the extent of the economic damage, especially as this drags on and into the next flu season…IMO. Businesses are like people, in that if they are sick they can still return to good health, but if they die (full bankruptcy) they do not arise from the dead…they must be reborn and nurtured with prodigious work, money, and time which many will not be able to duplicate.

I also expect that this virus does not work/destroy lung cells MUCH differently than any normal flu virus, except that it is simply so novel in its specific structure that people with poor immune systems (especially the elderly) have no relevant latent antibodies to help deal with it, and therefore the scarring is worse than otherwise (especially for people with auto-immune problems as well); and especially since most people have no or mild symptoms to this “super virus”(?). We shall see.

Not fake so much as overblown. He owns shares in a number of mutual funds which hold stakes in the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi which produces hydroxychloroquine under the brand-name Plaquenil as a minor offering in their lineup. Most discussed has been Trump’s holding — via three trusts which each include between $1K and $15K of a fund with 3.3% invested in Sanofi — of between $99 and $1,485. (Information via Trump’s 2019 financial-disclosure.) The New York Times article which first brought this up was primarily centered on the medical community’s mixed reaction to Trump’s “aggressive advocacy” of hydroxychloroquine, and it dismissed the investment as a “small personal stake” and clearly not the motivation behind that advocacy. That was responsible reporting. Other outlets have pushed the angle harder, and while I’ve not seen any explicitly lie, they haven’t put it in proper context, which I suppose qualifies as “fake news” in most circles these days. But so then would stories defending him with headlines that his investment may be as small as $99, without mentioning the upper range.

That New York Times article appears to have missed Trumps investment in some broader European stock-market index funds, which might give him another few thousand dollars invested in Sanofi. Still small beans.

Highly recommend the Tuesday 4/7/20 Mark Levin radio show.
Interview with Sean Davis from the Federalist = very enlightening.

You are wrong. I don’t know about the models you have worked to in New Zealand, but here in the U.S., the only model that assumed no action would be taken was the one that predicted 2 million deaths (over some unspecified time frame). The model that had us do simple action, such as restricting flights from China and social distancing, showed that such simple actions would save 90% of the predicted deaths. The current models that are based upon the draconian actions that we took have all predicted more deaths and hospitalizations than we have, here in the U.S. or for any region in the country.

As for the models being illustrative, that is poor basis upon which to shut down an entire economy and destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. Early methods to reduce infection rates were taken, but were not accounted for in the models that were used to direct our economy be destroyed. Somehow a destroyed economy is supposed to continue to work to keep the population alive and healthy, but when we are struggling just for sustenance, it is difficult to work on further development and progress. Just look at how poorly we have done over the past three weeks, now that other health care facilities have become unavailable. (I have a crown that came off a tooth, last week, but I cannot get it replaced, because it is not a dire condition.)

To present bogus models in order to scare us into taking action is unconscionable, and is a poor way to conduct policy making. As it turns out, some of the predictions here in the U.S. were intentionally made in order to scare us into action, but our policymakers were frightened into taking too much action. How can we ever again trust them to set good policy? They have ruined more lives with their economic destruction than they could possibly have saved.

To base policy upon emotion rather than rational thought is how a society gets into trouble. This is how we got policy makers telling us that we should visit San Francisco’s Chinatown, because it would be racist not to. It is how we got policy makers telling us that we should go to New York’s crowded Chinese New Year parade, because it would be racist not to. This is how both of those metropolitan areas ended up sheltering in place three weeks later. Italy has a similar tale of emotional policy-making woe.

Indeed, the more that we learn that we are under virtual house arrest because of flawed policy making (due to bogus science), the more upset we Americans become at our situation and lost liberty.

Where do the more strong arm theories about insisting that the public adhere to the proscribed rules being laid down by, specifically the politically empowered mayor and the governor of NYS and NYC come from? NYS and NYS as we all know are densely populated and international destination hub area of the country.

(Remember, the people of NYS and NYC voted for these kinds of leaders and there is always a price to pay for those choices and the balancing of their power as it relates to the peoples freedoms that any elected politico makes in the course of doing their job)

While the vast majority of people are conscious and aware and are generally staying away from people, wearing masks and gloves if they so choose, and are being very respectful of other peoples space. They are preserving their health as best as they can and still operate at some reasonable level. 95 plus or so percent of the people are doing this, but there are the 5 or 10 percent (?) that are just ignorant and oblivious of respecting other peoples space and Right to exist. No different than any other instance.

I myself have had to limit people and move them on when needed and I am much less tolerant. I have had to produce two versions of signs to assist me in communicating my wishes.

1. “ONLY 2 PEOPLE IN THE STORE AT A TIME, 5 MIN MAX” (In other words: Come in, get what you want, pay for it, and go home)

2. “NO DILLY DALLYING”. (In other words, no male apendaging around, don’t get comfortable. I wanted to use other words, words that are banned here on BTB, but I chose the less confrontational “No Dilly Dallying”. It gets the message across to most, but not all )

I am not wearing either a mask or wearing gloves, I am wearing safety goggles, and the door is open and I have a fan blowing past me and out the door, and I wash my hands after every transaction or if I touch something.

And even though I have these signs up, and am less welcoming and more to the point, and what is going on is going on in the world, there are still those who are totally oblivious and I have to “Positively” interact with them. And this human condition, this self absorbed ignorance is what is stressing the NY mayor and the governor out.

And it mostly usually comes from a “Lower” level of citizen, but not exclusively. And the line of freedom and Rights are pushed further and further because of these kinds of people, But that’s life. Nothing new here.

At some point people must take responsibility for themselves and who and where they associate, and there exists risk in life. Two inescapable facts.

We will move through this and adapt and move some how into the future. If not then everyone needs to begin to line up at the nearest bridge.

In regards to your father, is the UK trying the hydroxychloriquine + AZ or Zinc treatment?
Do you know if they tried it with your dad?

I am curious, nothing more.

Watching the debate on this course of treatment. It is really kind of pathetic.

Our media here would have us believe that Trump is ramming is down people’s throats.
And the self appointed MDs on social media make it worse.

On the flip side, even the medical community seems unsure about it.
Some are saying they see real results. Others not so much.

Outside of France, I do not know who else is trying it.

No. Heck no. I am in that category, reasonably healthy and still say no.

This disease is not the measles, its not the flu, its not chicken pox.

There are reports, slowly increasing, of long term damage caused by the disease. Perhaps even permanent. It is still too early to know. However, the possibility of long term reduced lung capacity and cardiac damage is enough of a side effect to for me to say that your idea is a bad one.

There have been reports of people with a recurring case. There have been reports of people still being carriers after most symptoms have cleared. There are still too many unknowns. And a prediction that it would be over in a month is based on what scientific facts?

Its not just the elderly at risk. The immunodeficient are also at risk. Do you know who in your social circles that is? Would you even know, unless they specifically told you they have lupus, Graves or some other auto-immune disease, or are a transplant recipients, who must suppress their immune systems daily through meds, or even have an diagnosed condition that has the same effect?

I know several family members that are in that category, and they do not choose to advertise it, because it is no one else’s business. They are all under 50. They would have to remain not only sheltered but even more so, under a full quarantine almost, because of your plan to avoid the increased risk created by it.

There are too many unknowns. The reports mentioned above are still anecdotal, because there has not been time to correlate the data, as they are still trying to keep people alive.

So, no. Its a bad idea.

If someone is exposed to the virus they very likely become infected.
Looking at the best data from around the world it looks like the CFR in East Asians and Western countries of those infected average between just under 1% to about 2% as long as health systems aren’t overloaded, and taking into account undiagnosed cases – with up to 2/3 of people infected being asymptomatic. Everything suggests Covid-19 is as contagious as the flu.

There are a few conditions that differ between the wealthy countries and the poorest countries apart from just per capita GDP:
The age structure, higher birth rates and lower life expectancy considerably reduce the percentage of the population over 60 years old.
The populations of poorer countries suffer from different ailments to richer countries, malnutrition and parasites vs obesity and diabetes.
The poorer countries are closer to the equator, possibly the virus has a shorter survival time outside the body in warmer climates.
Poorer countries have far less sophisticated and less resourced health services.

Any of these factors could and likely will alter the overall mortality rates compared to Western and East Asian countries, some upwards, some downwards.