version

Who loves ya, baby?
(Reuters) - More than a third of Americans misused cleaners and disinfectants to try to prevent infection by the coronavirus, according to a survey taken shortly after President Donald Trump publicly asked whether injecting such products could treat COVID-19.

Washing food with bleach, using household cleaning or disinfectant products on bare skin, and intentionally inhaling or ingesting these products were some of the most commonly reported “high-risk” practices in a May 4 online survey of 502 U.S. adults, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported.

The survey’s lead author said it was undertaken following a “sharp increase” in calls to poison control centers for exposure to cleaners and disinfectants during the pandemic.
 

Leo

Well-known member
cuz we're a bunch of dumbasses!

in fairness, I can kind of understand people being freaked out about germs and cleaning their hands with a disinfectant wipe. can't believe 30% of my neighbors are chugging Clorox, though.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
If there isn't a second wave, particularly after these huge protests, it's going to be interesting. It seems likely there will be though.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I think it's unlikely: registered cases are at roughly 20 a day in London (falling despite VE day celebrations and the like); overall community prevalence is 1/1000 (says SAGE) and SAGE also don't really speak out against gatherings in their minutes. I also think a pre-winter second wave cannot oustrip the first one.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Well-known member
not sure the protests will be the cause, since they are outside. the second wave is more likely to come when restaurants and bars reopen (even if at lower capacity), mass transit gets crowded and offices get employees back in. enclosed environments and relaxing of precautions (hand washing, masks, social distancing) will spawn the next wave.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Some rough work: our peak occurred after c.0.015% of the population had died from/with COVID - almost exactly the same proportion as Sweden. This implies that if the lockdown had any flattening effect, it was subsequent to the peak (this fits the timing too, because of the incubation period)...lockdown certainly wasn't required for a decrease in deaths per se as Sweden's have been decreasing the past six weeks. The corresponding figures also imply that we don't have much virgin territory left for the virus to attack - those countries which had a successful early lockdown and stifled a relatively unconstrained early growth are the only ones at real risk of a second wave (that would outgrow the first, at least).

Our total deaths are 0.06% of the population; Sweden's is 0.05%, which implies they have a little catching up to do (which fits, as their curve is behind ours).
 

Leo

Well-known member
another tale of two worlds...

A stunning statistical nugget — revealing of the extreme character of American polarization in these times — is buried at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal's piece on the latest NBC/WSJ national poll:
  • "Those who always wear a mask, as recommended by the federal government, said they supported Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump in November, 66% to 26%. Those who never or rarely wear masks backed Mr. Trump, 83% to 7%."
"Public-health guidance is now a political fashion statement, or bumper sticker over our faces," said pollster Jeff Horwitt.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
Yeah, I really think you need to show your work, cos it seems unsupported by evidence.


In Italy, a team of researchers recently simulated what could have happened if the country's restrictions had been relaxed in March — or not imposed at all. The results showed that the country's lockdown prevented around 200,000 hospitalizations between February 21 (when Italy's first case was reported) and March 25. It also reduced transmission of the virus in Italy by around 45%, according to the study.

Another group of scientists found that Chinese cities that implemented restrictions before they discovered any COVID-19 cases saw one-third fewer cases during their first week of infections than cities with delayed responses to the outbreak.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Well, I hope that lockdown wasn't for naught, as the price of such a swingeing measure is very high indeed!

And we already know that the assumptions used in the first model were overestimates, that we were then over-prepared and that great numbers of people were left to die in order to free up space for potential deaths (potential deaths according to the 'reasonable worst case', no less).

The Imperial paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

Criticisms of the Imperial paper, on first pass:

- It looks at 11 countries only - why those countries in particular?
- "We simulate a hypothetical counterfactual scenario where reproduction number remains at starting levels to estimate the deaths that would have occurred without interventions. " - why should the reproduction number stay constant? Doesn't Farr's Law and experience suggest that this isn't the case? This decision accentuates the effect of any measures, in accordance with:
- "For each country, we model the number of infections, the number of deaths, and Rt (Figure 1). Rt is modelled as a piecewise constant function that changes only when an intervention occurs. " - doesn't this assume what it is trying to ascertain?
- "Our estimates imply that the populations in Europe are not close to herd immunity (~70% if R0 is 3.814). " - There is no evidence that the entire population is susceptible. This 70% stat further increases the impact of modelled interventions
- "Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters such as the infection fatality rate " - they don't specify their IFR and (inferring from their counterfactual assertions) choose one that is at the higher end, giving a highly implausible counterfactual death toll in the UK of 500,000(!); the IFR decreases with increasing cases as the early cases include a higher proportion of the highly susceptible, as can be seen in the progress of the disease in the UK.
- Their counterfactual Swedish death toll is 10x greater than the actual; is it really plausible that their half-assed measures were that effective?

Modelling generally sucks, tho, as they inevitably privilege some parameters over others and slight adjustments of the variables can result in totally whacked-out figures.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Sweden is the only Nordic country that didn't have a proper lockdown. Their death rate per million is over 450. The next worst country is Denmark, whose number is 100.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
btw I do think that v.early stage lockdown seems far more effective than lockdown-once-the-cat's-out-the-bag, albeit with the proviso that you're easily back at square one on relaxation or due to a 'leak' (cos there's still plenty of 'flammable material' for the 'wildfire' to get at)

The UK was never realistically going to do v.early stage lockdown as there was not enough pressure on it to do so (certainly not from SAGE)...so the germane points of comparison are with countries that locked down - or not - at a similar juncture in the outbreak's development.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Is that not cherry-picking though?
Not at all, it's comparing like with like - all the Nordic countries are small, have low or lowish population densities, low levels of economic inequality and severe poverty, and routinely top global lists for social development and quality of health care.

They're not clones of each other but they're the closest you're going to get to a controlled experiment.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Aye, I think it's a good comparison between early-lockdown and no-lockdown (with the final analysis being made a year or two or five down the line and taking account of everything that human health encompasses) but the in-the-thick-of-it lockdowns are different beasts (with far worse collateral outcomes).

If a short-and-sharp early lockdown is possible to nip something in the bud (for good or near enough), then it's probably the way to go - but that distinction must be made; there's no point fooling ourselves about the effects of closing the gate after the horse has bolted and excusing a measure that is the worst for falling between two stools.

Not at all, it's comparing like with like - all the Nordic countries are small, have low or lowish population densities, low levels of economic inequality and severe poverty and routinely top global lists for social development and quality of health care.

They're not clones of each other but they're the closest you're going to get to a controlled experiment.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
I was actually referring to your previous post, but...


Well, I hope that lockdown wasn't for naught, as the price of such a swingeing measure is very high indeed!

And we already know that the assumptions used in the first model were overestimates, that we were then over-prepared and that great numbers of people were left to die in order to free up space for potential deaths (potential deaths according to the 'reasonable worst case', no less).

The Imperial paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

Criticisms of the Imperial paper, on first pass:

- It looks at 11 countries only - why those countries in particular?
- "We simulate a hypothetical counterfactual scenario where reproduction number remains at starting levels to estimate the deaths that would have occurred without interventions. " - why should the reproduction number stay constant? Doesn't Farr's Law and experience suggest that this isn't the case? This decision accentuates the effect of any measures, in accordance with:
- "For each country, we model the number of infections, the number of deaths, and Rt (Figure 1). Rt is modelled as a piecewise constant function that changes only when an intervention occurs. " - doesn't this assume what it is trying to ascertain?
- "Our estimates imply that the populations in Europe are not close to herd immunity (~70% if R0 is 3.814). " - There is no evidence that the entire population is susceptible. This 70% stat further increases the impact of modelled interventions
- "Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters such as the infection fatality rate " - they don't specify their IFR and (inferring from their counterfactual assertions) choose one that is at the higher end, giving a highly implausible counterfactual death toll in the UK of 500,000(!); the IFR decreases with increasing cases as the early cases include a higher proportion of the highly susceptible, as can be seen in the progress of the disease in the UK.
- Their counterfactual Swedish death toll is 10x greater than the actual; is it really plausible that their half-assed measures were that effective?

Modelling generally sucks, tho, as they inevitably privilege some parameters over others and slight adjustments of the variables can result in totally whacked-out figures.
So many assumptions here. 500,000 is not an implausibly high number as it sits within the 0.6 to 1.2% predicted and (mostly) verified case fatality rate. There is no conclusive or strong evidence that the entire population is NOT susceptible other than 2 tiny studies and the hunches of a couple of epidemiologists. Maybe we'll eventually find thats correct, but it would be completely insane basis for policy.

Sweden is not the only example, we see in various comparisons that the countries that locked down late or had ineffective lockdowns have worse outcomes, with higher deaths per million, more confirmed cases, slower decline in rate of infection, and, as it turns out, dont end up that much closer to herd immunity. So more pain for very little gain.
 
Top