Another possibility is that the shutdowns were too late and too halfassed and when we open back up it won’t change the trajectory all that much.
So why did the curve bend with even the most optimistic studies saying 4% of us had it? Virus got tired or what?
Yeah, this is not what it is. I like your optimism, but we are fucked.
1 Like
Nah, or else we’d be seeing NYC-type stuff ~everywhere. Social distancing definitely worked pretty well at flattening the curve.
The problem is in the past few weeks we’ve “learned” that just having a flatter curve isn’t anywhere near good enough to OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
Our biggest hope is that people will be drastically more careful and that this will have a significant impact. Or weather. Or some stealth spreading derp is actually true.
However, I worry about other factors. For instance, since we’ve all stayed in for a month or two, our immune systems might be taking a collective breather. And people were bound to begin relaxing their social distancing anyways at home and with friends, so we can probably expect returns to diminish over time.
1 Like
I have somewhere upthread the model of a broad reopening May 1 for two weeks
What I am hoping is that the covidiot states show “the what not to do example” (I wish the wouldn’t open but they aren’t taking my calls).
Then the rest of us wait a ~month and open with real plans.
In other news we have a Darwin WINNER
6 Likes
New York State started a major random antibody test study. They are taking 3,000 test per day at unannounced locations like grocery stores and street corners. Results will be interesting. With over 1% of state already confirmed positive, I wouldn’t be surprised if 20% of population has antibodies.
2 Likes
I briefly engaged a MAGAt family member b/c I was curious what he’d say. Apparently now the party line is that most of the models are broken (especially IMHE) and have been wrong every step of the way and that I should take a look at the “Stanford study”. I haven’t kept up too much with corona news in the past week or 2 b/c at some point it just gets depressing and I’ve come to terms with just quarantining for the next 6-18 months.
What exactly is the Stanford study? Is that the antibody study where they posited that it’s possible that 50-75% already have it and thus it’s far less deadly than anticipated? Does anyone in this forum (i.e. people w/brains and critical thinking skills) actually think this is a possibility? I’m guessing that there is far from conclusive evidence that this is true and it would be far too costly to deviate from our present course of extensive quarantines. So it appears Fox is latching onto the idea that quarantining is a “socialist” tool to destroy the economy /Trump and that we need to get back to work right away because all of us already have corona anyway.
I’m gonna guess 15%.
But I don’t trust any antibody tests right now. Also this study is far from random so maybe it will be higher.
Biased sample for obvious reasons.
Eta- Fuck me and suzzer rode in on almost the same pony but mine had covid.
Like econophile’s NYC study - it’s a completely unrandom study of 3200 volunteers with antibody tests of questionable accuracy - which suggests the true infected rate is something like 20x-60x the confirmed case rate (based on swab tests).
Still isn’t near herd immunity because CA’s case rate is so low. Really doesn’t mean very much. So of course the derposphere is all over it. As the MAGAt to put in his own words what he thinks it means.
1 Like
4 Likes
And since we still really don’t understand the asymptomatic piece of the puzzle we are taking a ridiculous risk.
2 Likes
I think the difference in the Stanford study design and the current New York State design is that the Stanford study solicited volunteers. New York is randomly selecting locations to test. So it will be biased towards people who are leaving their homes. But seems better than what Stanford did.
Hard to see how you get a true random sample under these circumstances without going door to door.
1 there will still be some selection bias. These are people willing to go out so have more exposure than the true shut-ins.
2 more and more indications that the tests are unvalidated BULLSHIT. I posted a detailed article upthread today.
Be very careful because a certain class of covidiots jump to “herd immunity right around the corner”.
As I have stated a bunch of times a whole lot of scientists can’t science like any other walk of life.
I can’t keep track of everything upthread, so not sure if your criticism is about the antibody tests developed by New York.
Randomly pick 3k people and offer 1k each to come take a test. Stimulus plus hardly anyone says no.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure you should wear that mask. As far as professional experience, I’m only ever exposed to dust from attics or grinding a little stucco and never had a fancy mask with cartridges for dealing with solvents or w/e.
1 Like
But what about my wife?
:rimshot:
Channeling Henny Youngman
5 Likes
At least in the NY case you may be able to try and figure some demographics for who goes to the store. They need to ask each person how many times they’ve been to a store per week. Some reasonable correction factor.
But Im so concerned about the test result issues to say that the whole study will be less than the paper it’s not printed on.
It’s bad, really bad over all. Some are probably better than others but there is no differentiation.
Grrrrr Danspartan going Hulk. Just got in trouble for yelling at the tv for giving so much time to those covidiot protests.
3 Likes