The new Corona virus, should we worry?

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,025
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
Minnesota has successfully prolonged the pain such that we may still be working on peaking. 11.5% positives in today's results. National average is now running around 4% today.

Nursing home deaths- over 81% - worst in the nation

Deaths per million
Minnesota 154
Iowa 133
Wisconsin 84 (using the Bo Ryan Defense I assume)
North Dakota 68
South Dakota 54

Of the 14541 cases under age 60- we now have 52 deaths. Mortality rate on KNOWN cases = .0036
Considering that there is a minimum of 10X more cases than that which are not identified- that would take the mortality rate to .00036. Way under the mortality rate for flu.

Yep, so it is not deadly at all for the working population that are sitting home going broke. But is deadly for those that we have failed to protect. 17.7% of the known cases (790/4464) over the age of 60 have died. Who was responsible for the "plan" that failed them?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,025
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
Now Fauci says:
Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause ‘irreparable damage’


 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,641
Reaction score
256
Points
83

I just read this article and it seems to be pretty absurd policy. I owe (someone who posted the article at my request) a read of the Florida policy. The question remains though, about where they should be placed if they do not require hospital care (and the associated costs - dismissing the need for the space, as that's not an issue). A policy of allowing rogue facilities to accept these patients I guess is a free market and it could be argued that should be the mechanism to govern that. But the forced placement is whole 'nother matter. It's not clear to me if that's still occurring in MN. But pretty bad policy when it was.

We have lots of geniuses here. BGA, you seem to be the smartest, most fair poster on the board. Where would you place these folks? How would you carry that out? What would your policy be as governor?
 

mplarson7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Minnesota has successfully prolonged the pain such that we may still be working on peaking. 11.5% positives in today's results. National average is now running around 4% today.

Nursing home deaths- over 81% - worst in the nation

Deaths per million
Minnesota 154
Iowa 133
Wisconsin 84 (using the Bo Ryan Defense I assume)
North Dakota 68
South Dakota 54

Of the 14541 cases under age 60- we now have 52 deaths. Mortality rate on KNOWN cases = .0036
Considering that there is a minimum of 10X more cases than that which are not identified- that would take the mortality rate to .00036. Way under the mortality rate for flu.

Yep, so it is not deadly at all for the working population that are sitting home going broke. But is deadly for those that we have failed to protect. 17.7% of the known cases (790/4464) over the age of 60 have died. Who was responsible for the "plan" that failed them?
You're still trying to spread info that Covid-19 is less deadly than the flu?

Oh my.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
I can’t state this for a fact but reading the news stories and interviews of her out there, reading between the lines she sounds IMO like a know it all (takes one to know one). Abrasives tend to get washed out in short order if they don’t bring significant and irreplaceable needed skill. She was on the job all of 7 months. That’s in the “oh **** we hired a problem child“ zone after the workplace honeymoon period wears off.
She created the dashboard that Florida uses as their reporting tool. One that Dr. Birx specifically used as an example of how every state should have them set up.

What a know it all.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
What case/death/test numbers are they manipulating. Be specific on category and link a source please.
They wanted her to manipulate the numbers to support reopening the state. You can fill in the blanks on what that means in terms of what is being reported.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,709
Points
113
I've seen plenty of legit articles from zerohedge.

When someone posts something here, and i have time, i read the entire article. I attempt to comprehend and analyze it before I make any judgement about it. I see that you dont.

Also, in the very first line of this particular article, it states this that its comes right from RealClearPolitics. Thanks for not reading and still offering "advice"
View attachment 8105

Every website has some legit articles. Zerohedge is known for pushing conspiracy theories and pure BS. If there is legit info about a topic, you can find a better source.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
246
Points
63
A little bit of info about how best to construct a homemade face mask.

In a DOD newsletter I receive, it was noted that scientists with the Army Research Lab, working with a Massachusetts hospital, have figured out the best easy-to-find materials for making homemade masks: a layer of absorbent cloth combined with a water-repelling fabric, preferably one treated with Scotchgard.

With N95 masks (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks) seemingly still reserved for hospital workers, home-brewed masks seem to be the only solution for the general public. The above research is apparently proving that homemade masks can be as good or better than professional N95 masks.

For testing purposes the team engineered a fluorescent nanoparticle the same size and character as COVID-19. They sprayed 2 mL of it through an artist’s airbrush, creating an aerosol that’s passed through (if indeed it makes it through) the test material and onto a glass slide. The slide is inspected (and fluorescent droplets counted) using a fluorescent microscope. The quantity of fluorescent particles making it through can be compared to that of a certified N95 mask (or to no barrier at all).

So far, they’ve found nine homemade material + design combinations that are statistically equivalent to N95 masks, plus two that are actually better. Only partial results and general hints are recorded in this article (see below), but they claim that the researchers will publish their findings later. I haven't been able to find that follow-up report, though. The leader of the research was Steven Lustig, an associate professor at Northeastern University and a chemical engineer at the Army Research Lab, assisted by a small team of students.

The ideal homemade masks need a couple layers (and I gathered the more layers the better). At least one layer should be an absorbent layer composed of something like quilted cotton, terrycloth, dense flannel, 200GSM T-shirt material, etc. You also need at least one layer that’s hydrophobic, meaning that it repels water, such as a polyester fabric like OLY-Fun. The hydrophobic layer should preferably be treated with Scotchgard (it didn't say, but I would think Scotchgard on both sides, one to keep outside droplets from coming in, and the other to keep your own breath droplets from going out). The more layers you add, alternating back and forth, the better you are protected.

All the materials that they tested were available at Jo-Ann Stores. Although their OLY-Fun page (https://www.joann.com/olyfun-10-yard-bolt/zprd_14065353a.html) disclaims that "homemade masks are not a substitute for N95 masks," it also notes that "As a non-woven it is similar to the material used in surgical masks, however, OLY-Fun has not been tested or approved for medical use or filtration capabilities. A one-ply sheet of OLY-Fun is a non-woven 65GSM, whereas commercially manufactured surgical masks are typically made of 3-ply 25GSM non-woven with additional filtration added."

I checked the definition of GSM and learned that it just stands for grams per square meter of the fabric (see https://www.customapparelsource.net/what-is-the-definition-of-gsm-when-purchasing-fabric). Divide by 33.906 to convert to the fabric's Engish weight in ounces per square yard. In any event, one would think that since the 65GSM OLY-Fun is more than 2X fhe weight of 25GSM non-woven, that two plys of OLY-Fun (130GSM) might be as good as three plys of 25GSM.

A mask also needs a specific filtration layer, and these are typically a melt-blown fabric (e.g., https://www.sailrite.com/Melt-Blown-Face-Mask-Filter-Material-BFE-95-50-5-Yds and https://www.non-woven.com/product/meltblown-fabric-for-mask and https://www.walmart.com/ip/95-Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters/776292735 and https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters-16-40ft-5M/633283841 and ). Research shows that masks can do nearly as well as respirators when the concentration of infectious viruses is low. A couple useful web sites are https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp and http://www.95mask.com/news/disposable-surgical-face-mask-material-details.html and http://emag.medicalexpo.com/which-masks-actually-protect-against-coronavirus and https://qz.com/1826057/us-fashion-brands-making-masks-expose-a-failure-of-the-health-system.

I'll keep my eyes out for the promised follow-up article, but there is nothing on the professor's web page.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
246
Points
63
Minnesota has successfully prolonged the pain such that we may still be working on peaking. 11.5% positives in today's results. National average is now running around 4% today.

Nursing home deaths- over 81% - worst in the nation

Deaths per million
Minnesota 154
Iowa 133
Wisconsin 84 (using the Bo Ryan Defense I assume)
North Dakota 68
South Dakota 54

Of the 14541 cases under age 60- we now have 52 deaths. Mortality rate on KNOWN cases = .0036
Considering that there is a minimum of 10X more cases than that which are not identified- that would take the mortality rate to .00036. Way under the mortality rate for flu.

Yep, so it is not deadly at all for the working population that are sitting home going broke. But is deadly for those that we have failed to protect. 17.7% of the known cases (790/4464) over the age of 60 have died. Who was responsible for the "plan" that failed them?
You should actually put that on a sign and parade around in front of Walz's house on Summit Ave. I recommend you not immitate the Michigan Capitol protesters, though, i.e., leave your Confederate flag and rifle at home.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
729
Points
113
She created the dashboard that Florida uses as their reporting tool. One that Dr. Birx specifically used as an example of how every state should have them set up.

What a know it all.
No she didn’t, the template is from ESRI. At best she is a glorified junior data entry tech that like to argue about the definition of recovered with her bosses. Talk about puffing up a resume. A hard LOL.

ESRI COVID-19 dashboard software for sale - look familiar?
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
729
Points
113
They wanted her to manipulate the numbers to support reopening the state. You can fill in the blanks on what that means in terms of what is being reported.
The article discussed an argument over a data test set of onset of symptoms vs date of positive test which nobody (in the general public) cares about. It’s a worthless metric in practical terms, and based on other quotes I can see why she was demoted.

AlGore didn’t create the internet either.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
729
Points
113
&
A little bit of info about how best to construct a homemade face mask.

In a DOD newsletter I receive, it was noted that scientists with the Army Research Lab, working with a Massachusetts hospital, have figured out the best easy-to-find materials for making homemade masks: a layer of absorbent cloth combined with a water-repelling fabric, preferably one treated with Scotchgard.

With N95 masks (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks) seemingly still reserved for hospital workers, home-brewed masks seem to be the only solution for the general public. The above research is apparently proving that homemade masks can be as good or better than professional N95 masks.

For testing purposes the team engineered a fluorescent nanoparticle the same size and character as COVID-19. They sprayed 2 mL of it through an artist’s airbrush, creating an aerosol that’s passed through (if indeed it makes it through) the test material and onto a glass slide. The slide is inspected (and fluorescent droplets counted) using a fluorescent microscope. The quantity of fluorescent particles making it through can be compared to that of a certified N95 mask (or to no barrier at all).

So far, they’ve found nine homemade material + design combinations that are statistically equivalent to N95 masks, plus two that are actually better. Only partial results and general hints are recorded in this article (see below), but they claim that the researchers will publish their findings later. I haven't been able to find that follow-up report, though. The leader of the research was Steven Lustig, an associate professor at Northeastern University and a chemical engineer at the Army Research Lab, assisted by a small team of students.

The ideal homemade masks need a couple layers (and I gathered the more layers the better). At least one layer should be an absorbent layer composed of something like quilted cotton, terrycloth, dense flannel, 200GSM T-shirt material, etc. You also need at least one layer that’s hydrophobic, meaning that it repels water, such as a polyester fabric like OLY-Fun. The hydrophobic layer should preferably be treated with Scotchgard (it didn't say, but I would think Scotchgard on both sides, one to keep outside droplets from coming in, and the other to keep your own breath droplets from going out). The more layers you add, alternating back and forth, the better you are protected.

All the materials that they tested were available at Jo-Ann Stores. Although their OLY-Fun page (https://www.joann.com/olyfun-10-yard-bolt/zprd_14065353a.html) disclaims that "homemade masks are not a substitute for N95 masks," it also notes that "As a non-woven it is similar to the material used in surgical masks, however, OLY-Fun has not been tested or approved for medical use or filtration capabilities. A one-ply sheet of OLY-Fun is a non-woven 65GSM, whereas commercially manufactured surgical masks are typically made of 3-ply 25GSM non-woven with additional filtration added."

I checked the definition of GSM and learned that it just stands for grams per square meter of the fabric (see https://www.customapparelsource.net/what-is-the-definition-of-gsm-when-purchasing-fabric). Divide by 33.906 to convert to the fabric's Engish weight in ounces per square yard. In any event, one would think that since the 65GSM OLY-Fun is more than 2X fhe weight of 25GSM non-woven, that two plys of OLY-Fun (130GSM) might be as good as three plys of 25GSM.

A mask also needs a specific filtration layer, and these are typically a melt-blown fabric (e.g., https://www.sailrite.com/Melt-Blown-Face-Mask-Filter-Material-BFE-95-50-5-Yds and https://www.non-woven.com/product/meltblown-fabric-for-mask and https://www.walmart.com/ip/95-Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters/776292735 and https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters-16-40ft-5M/633283841 and ). Research shows that masks can do nearly as well as respirators when the concentration of infectious viruses is low. A couple useful web sites are https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp and http://www.95mask.com/news/disposable-surgical-face-mask-material-details.html and http://emag.medicalexpo.com/which-masks-actually-protect-against-coronavirus and https://qz.com/1826057/us-fashion-brands-making-masks-expose-a-failure-of-the-health-system.

I'll keep my eyes out for the promised follow-up article, but there is nothing on the professor's web page.
Interesting, but I wonder how the masks perform without the electrostatic filters in N95s in terms of filtering efficiency -and- breathability? It would be a significant breakthrough if the non-Charles Bronsons out there (Death Wish) and particularly the vulnerable had access to something other than a Boy Scout bandanna looped around their neck like something out of Tombstone.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
564
Points
113
They wanted her to manipulate the numbers to support reopening the state. You can fill in the blanks on what that means in terms of what is being reported.
Keep saying this over and over again. Who knows, that may make it true to you at some point?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
No she didn’t, the template is from ESRI. At best she is a glorified junior data entry tech that like to argue about the definition of recovered with her bosses. Talk about puffing up a resume. A hard LOL.

ESRI COVID-19 dashboard software for sale - look familiar?
You sure about that? Doesn't sound like a junior data entry tech....but maybe you read something that I missed. Link?

When the COVID-19 virus outbreak hit Florida and the public needed information, Rebekah Jones ’12 was ready for action. As the geographic information systems (GIS) manager for the State of Florida Department of Health (DOH), she built the state’s COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard, an interactive website that provides key information on the virus, detailed down to the county level. “I started from scratch and decided what I thought was important,” says Jones, a geospatial scientist who earned a dual bachelor’s degree in geography and journalism at Syracuse University. “I really wanted people to be able to quickly, easily and clearly understand what the numbers are in our state.”

For Jones, it was no easy task. Short-staffed, she tackled the project by herself, hunkering down with GIS mapping software for a weekend of coding, accessing databases and consolidating millions of lines of data to develop the dashboard. She drew on the interdisciplinary foundation that she built at Syracuse, combining her scientific knowledge with graphic and web interface design skills. For the basic idea, she initially consulted the global coronavirus map produced by Johns Hopkins University. She also kept in mind what would be useful to not only the general public, but academic and private researchers doing modeling projects involving the virus.

Jones’ dashboard covers the total cases in Florida, including the number of Florida and non-Florida residents who’ve tested positive, the number of deaths and how many people are being monitored. As of March 30, the dashboard had received more than 44.7 million views—and climbing—from unique IP addresses. One dashboard tab focuses on testing results, showing the statewide total, positive and negative results and those pending. Users can select any county on the statewide map to find data for total cases, demographics, conditions and care and travel-related cases. The county-level breakdown features bar graphs on age distribution, testing and surveillance, percentage of travel-related cases and total numbers (positive residents and nonresidents, deaths and those under surveillance). Yet another tab is devoted to cases in the United States and worldwide, incorporating the Johns Hopkins heat map model. “On Monday [March 16], when I had something I thought was presentable, I sent it to DOH and they thought it looked great,” she says.

A few hours later in the state’s Emergency Response Center in Tallahassee, she was two rooms away from a press conference being held by Gov. Ron DeSantis when he announced the dashboard was “the new face of Florida’s coronavirus response,” she says. Admittedly, she was caught off-guard, hit with a mix of both pride and fear—thinking, “I’d better make sure it’s running correctly because if something crashes now, we're in big trouble.”

No worries. Jones tweaked the dashboard a few times, and it quickly became a go-to source as media outlets posted it on their websites and Jones fielded queries from the public and journalists. When it comes to dealing with crises, Jones has plenty of experience. As a teenager in the rural southern Mississippi town of Wiggins, she endured the devastation and tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Her family’s home was flooded and they lost family members in the New Orleans area. She was also out of school for months after her high school was destroyed. “Having been a kid who went through Katrina and seeing some things that may not have been appropriate for a 16-year-old, I understand how important it is to have effective leaders during a crisis,” she says. “I believe I can be one of those effective leaders and feel a duty to do so.”

Despite criticisms they don’t go far enough, Gov. Ron DeSantis has touted the state’s coronavirus data reports as some of the most transparent in the country. And on Sunday, the Department of Health got a boost from Dr. Deborah Birx.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force’s coronavirus response coordinator went on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday morning to discuss the national response to the pandemic. But along the way, she gave a shoutout to DOH’s interactive model.

“If you go to the Florida Public Health website on COVID, they’ve been able to show their communities’ cases and tests district by district, county by county, ZIP code by ZIP code,” Birx said. “That’s the kind of knowledge and power we need to put into the hands of American people so that they can see where the virus is, where the cases are, and make decisions.”

The “dashboard” also shows the basic statistics, including the total number of confirmed cases, the death toll and the trend in the past month. But the real power, she said, is in the specificity of the data.

“One thing I’ve been so impressed with, if you give Americans knowledge, they will translate that into protective actions that protect themselves and their community,” Birx said. “And so we have to really have to get them information in a much more granular way than a national way or even a state way.”
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
The article discussed an argument over a data test set of onset of symptoms vs date of positive test which nobody (in the general public) cares about. It’s a worthless metric in practical terms, and based on other quotes I can see why she was demoted.

AlGore didn’t create the internet either.
Based on the DeSantis quotes? Yes....those should be given great weight.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
528
Points
113
At the University of Chicago, two economists did an economic study on social distancing using sophisticated modeling techniques. This is what their abstract stated:

"This paper develops and implements a method to monetize the impact of moderate social distancing on deaths from COVID-19. Using the Ferguson et al. (2020) simulation model of COVID-19’s spread and mortality impacts in the United States, we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits."

 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
48
Points
48
A little bit of info about how best to construct a homemade face mask.

In a DOD newsletter I receive, it was noted that scientists with the Army Research Lab, working with a Massachusetts hospital, have figured out the best easy-to-find materials for making homemade masks: a layer of absorbent cloth combined with a water-repelling fabric, preferably one treated with Scotchgard.

With N95 masks (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks) seemingly still reserved for hospital workers, home-brewed masks seem to be the only solution for the general public. The above research is apparently proving that homemade masks can be as good or better than professional N95 masks.

For testing purposes the team engineered a fluorescent nanoparticle the same size and character as COVID-19. They sprayed 2 mL of it through an artist’s airbrush, creating an aerosol that’s passed through (if indeed it makes it through) the test material and onto a glass slide. The slide is inspected (and fluorescent droplets counted) using a fluorescent microscope. The quantity of fluorescent particles making it through can be compared to that of a certified N95 mask (or to no barrier at all).

So far, they’ve found nine homemade material + design combinations that are statistically equivalent to N95 masks, plus two that are actually better. Only partial results and general hints are recorded in this article (see below), but they claim that the researchers will publish their findings later. I haven't been able to find that follow-up report, though. The leader of the research was Steven Lustig, an associate professor at Northeastern University and a chemical engineer at the Army Research Lab, assisted by a small team of students.

The ideal homemade masks need a couple layers (and I gathered the more layers the better). At least one layer should be an absorbent layer composed of something like quilted cotton, terrycloth, dense flannel, 200GSM T-shirt material, etc. You also need at least one layer that’s hydrophobic, meaning that it repels water, such as a polyester fabric like OLY-Fun. The hydrophobic layer should preferably be treated with Scotchgard (it didn't say, but I would think Scotchgard on both sides, one to keep outside droplets from coming in, and the other to keep your own breath droplets from going out). The more layers you add, alternating back and forth, the better you are protected.

All the materials that they tested were available at Jo-Ann Stores. Although their OLY-Fun page (https://www.joann.com/olyfun-10-yard-bolt/zprd_14065353a.html) disclaims that "homemade masks are not a substitute for N95 masks," it also notes that "As a non-woven it is similar to the material used in surgical masks, however, OLY-Fun has not been tested or approved for medical use or filtration capabilities. A one-ply sheet of OLY-Fun is a non-woven 65GSM, whereas commercially manufactured surgical masks are typically made of 3-ply 25GSM non-woven with additional filtration added."

I checked the definition of GSM and learned that it just stands for grams per square meter of the fabric (see https://www.customapparelsource.net/what-is-the-definition-of-gsm-when-purchasing-fabric). Divide by 33.906 to convert to the fabric's Engish weight in ounces per square yard. In any event, one would think that since the 65GSM OLY-Fun is more than 2X fhe weight of 25GSM non-woven, that two plys of OLY-Fun (130GSM) might be as good as three plys of 25GSM.

A mask also needs a specific filtration layer, and these are typically a melt-blown fabric (e.g., https://www.sailrite.com/Melt-Blown-Face-Mask-Filter-Material-BFE-95-50-5-Yds and https://www.non-woven.com/product/meltblown-fabric-for-mask and https://www.walmart.com/ip/95-Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters/776292735 and https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nonwoven-Meltblown-Cloth-Fabric-Filtering-Layer-Polypropylene-Making-Efficiency-Filters-16-40ft-5M/633283841 and ). Research shows that masks can do nearly as well as respirators when the concentration of infectious viruses is low. A couple useful web sites are https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp and http://www.95mask.com/news/disposable-surgical-face-mask-material-details.html and http://emag.medicalexpo.com/which-masks-actually-protect-against-coronavirus and https://qz.com/1826057/us-fashion-brands-making-masks-expose-a-failure-of-the-health-system.

I'll keep my eyes out for the promised follow-up article, but there is nothing on the professor's web page.
My sons girlfriend works at Fairview Southdale. There are some who are cutting apart 3M furnace filters to use as inserts with their masks.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
246
Points
63
The article discussed an argument over a data test set of onset of symptoms vs date of positive test which nobody (in the general public) cares about. It’s a worthless metric in practical terms, and based on other quotes I can see why she was demoted.

AlGore didn’t create the internet either.
I wouldn't mind having separate columns for dates of {onset of symptoms, test administered, test result received back} but then again, I probably am one of the few that wants that detail. And the problem would be that if Florida gave that, they might be the only state doing so anyway, so what's the use. Reading between the lines of the article, it looked like that new date-of-symptoms had "no data" values in most columns anyway. Because they mostly had Jan 1 dates, and nobody had symptoms yet at that time, so that's just gotta be the signifier of "do not know", that is, "no data." Not worth much if mostly missing data.

She did have a masters degree, so I doubt she's as dumb as you're guessing. She can probably get a job implementing the ESRI template at some other state that gets along with her better, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
246
Points
63
Interesting, but I wonder how the masks perform without the electrostatic filters in N95s in terms of filtering efficiency -and- breathability? It would be a significant breakthrough if the non-Charles Bronsons out there (Death Wish) and particularly the vulnerable had access to something other than a Boy Scout bandanna looped around their neck like something out of Tombstone.
One of the things that bums me out is that my closest grocery store is a Walmart (and it does have the slight benefit of being in a slightly more Covid-free county than the next county over) and Walmart has reduced their shopping hours, generally starting at 7 AM (except on old-folks day) and closing at 8:30 PM, supposedly so they have more time to restock their shelves. Yet you go there mid-day and half the total people in the store are stockers (perhaps infested with Covid-19 since over 1,000 people per day pass by them) wearing their useless red or blue bandanas, and blocking up every single aisle in the strore so that it's impossible to stay 6 feet from them. The six-foot spacing lines at the checkout seem like a farce after that shopping experience. Can't they pay a bonus to graveyard-shift stockers? I'd gladly pay a couple percent more rather than get killed by a bandana-wearing character like from one of the movies you mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
At the University of Chicago, two economists did an economic study on social distancing using sophisticated modeling techniques. This is what their abstract stated:

"This paper develops and implements a method to monetize the impact of moderate social distancing on deaths from COVID-19. Using the Ferguson et al. (2020) simulation model of COVID-19’s spread and mortality impacts in the United States, we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits."

Sad that came from U Chicago.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
729
Points
113
At the University of Chicago, two economists did an economic study on social distancing using sophisticated modeling techniques. This is what their abstract stated:

"This paper develops and implements a method to monetize the impact of moderate social distancing on deaths from COVID-19. Using the Ferguson et al. (2020) simulation model of COVID-19’s spread and mortality impacts in the United States, we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits."

The Ferguson Empire model has proven to be wildly pessimistic invalidating this study. The direct and indirect costs of too strict lockdowns OTOH are tremendous.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
13,882
Reaction score
729
Points
113
I wouldn't mind having separate columns for dates of {onset of symptoms, test administered, test result received back} but then again, I probably am one of the few that wants that detail. And the problem would be that if Florida gave that, they might be the only state doing so anyway, so what's the use. Reading between the lines of the article, it looked like that new date-of-symptoms had "no data" values in most columns anyway. Because they mostly had Jan 1 dates, and nobody had symptoms yet at that time, so that's just gotta be the signifier of "do not know", that is, "no data." Not worth much if mostly missing data.

She did have a masters degree, so I doubt she's as dumb as you're guessing. She can probably get a job implementing the ESRI template at some other state that gets along with her better, I suppose.
I never said she was dumb. I said she’s probably abrasive. The article insinuated she designed the dashboard from scratch which is incorrect. She apparently knows how to organize GIS data, import it from the counties in the correct format, apply software analysis tools and so on. Let’s not alert the Nobel committeee.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
246
Points
63
At the University of Chicago, two economists did an economic study on social distancing using sophisticated modeling techniques. This is what their abstract stated:

"This paper develops and implements a method to monetize the impact of moderate social distancing on deaths from COVID-19. Using the Ferguson et al. (2020) simulation model of COVID-19’s spread and mortality impacts in the United States, we project that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save 1.7 million lives by October 1. Of the lives saved, 630,000 are due to avoided overwhelming of hospital intensive care units. Using the projected age-specific reductions in death and age-varying estimates of the United States Government’s value of a statistical life, we find that the mortality benefits of social distancing are about $8 trillion or $60,000 per US household. Roughly 90% of the monetized benefits are projected to accrue to people age 50 or older. Overall, the analysis suggests that social distancing initiatives and policies in response to the COVID-19 epidemic have substantial economic benefits."

]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561244
This is a very interesting paper, if only in the sense that it attempts to answer a tough quesion that has been batted around multiple times on this thread, with nary a GHer willing to take a swing at an answer - namely, what is the value of a life saved (from an otherwise death by Covid-19)? They take what apparently is a standard economic approach to this question (dodging the moral aspects of that question, of course), called "value of a statistical life" (VSL). It might be worth reading for that part alone.

Actually, that would be the only reason to read it in my opinion (unless you're just interested in their methodology, which is interesting). Although their approach is good, they make the fatal mistake of picking the known-bad Imperial College model of Neil Ferguson to work with for determining the estimates of lives saved. They actually call this out in their text, saying "Finally, we note that the particular benefits estimates are only as reliable as Ferguson et al.’s projections on COVID-19’s spread and health risks." Well, the Ferguson projections aren't reliable at all, and so much for the results of this paper. But before getting into that, let's first take a peek at how they value a life. I quote from the paper ...

"To convert the main benefit of social distancing – reducing the mortality impact of COVID-19 – into dollar terms, we turn to the value of a statistical life (VSL). The VSL is a tool from economic theory which is now a standard ingredient in the cost-benefit analyses that undergird decision-making by the United States Government. The topline result is that social distancing is projected to reduce COVID-19 caused fatalities by 1.76 million by October 1 and that this is worth $7.9 trillion."

The calculation is actually complex since it's broken down by age segments. Of course, we know that more older people die of Covid-19 so that the age distribution weighting tilts toward the older folks, larglely. But the value of a life is apparently proportional to the average number of years they would have left (if they don't die now) so that the big bucks worth of value (per person) is racked up by the younger folks. Anyway, they do the math, and dividing $7.9 trillion by 1.76 million, we get an average value of about $4.5 million per life saved. This would be for an "average saved Covid life" in the sense that one of these prototypical lives saved is a weighted (by percent in age group) average for the typical Covid-19 deaths distribution. It's all very complicated, but I think you can understand it at least at a high level.

Now how about their guess of 1.76 million lives saved? As I noted in my post #14564, although the conclusions of that ZeroHedge article (which came from RealClearPolitics) were all messed up, they did conveniently summarize the success rate of Ferguson's Imperial College model as follows ...

"The March 16 report by Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson is credited (or blamed) with causing the U.K. to lock down and contributing to the domino effect of global lockdowns. The model has since come under intense criticism for being “totally unreliable and a buggy mess.” This is the same Neil Ferguson who in 2005 predicted 200 million could die from the bird flu. Total deaths over the last 15 years turned out to be 455. This is the same Neil Ferguson who in 2009 predicted that 65,000 people could die in the U.K. from the swine flu. The final number ended up around 392. Now, in 2020, he predicted that 500,000 British would die from coronavirus. His deeply flawed model led the United States to fear over 2 million deaths and was used to justify locking down nearly the entire nation."

I can also attest to the "totally unreliable and a buggy mess" since I read in detail the article that some GHer posted by a computer scientist that delineated the horror story about the Imperial model code. Even after a sharp team of Microsoft software engineers tried to clean up the code and port it into a more modular object-oriented format, it still was buggy. Furthermore, the attitude of the Imperial College team that managed that research had an "oh well" attitude about all those bugs. Some code is just so bad it's beyond rescue.

I know full well that Covid-19 is more serious than some other potential pandemics that the Imperial College model was applied to, but Ferguson's badly coded model was off on the high side every single time in the past. We could do the exercise of taking the geometric average of how far his model was off over the two examples listed in the ZeroHedge/RealClearPolitics article. As a (geometric) average, Ferguson's model was high by a factor of 8,537.

So if the Imperial College model were to be equally bad in predicting coronavirus results (when used by the University of Chicago team), then their projection of 1.76 million saved lives would be reduced (after dividing by the average Ferguson overestimate factor) to a savings of 236 lives. So, that is probably a result that is way too low, just like the 1.76 million estimate is way too high. So, given the accuracy of that model, one can say that 3-4 months of moderate distancing beginning in late March 2020 would save somewhere between 236 and 1.76 million lives by October 1. Don't ya just love those error bars?

In a nutshell, this U of Chicago research is essentially garbage because it's based on Ferguson's Imperial College garbage model.
The Ferguson Empire model has proven to be wildly pessimistic invalidating this study. The direct and indirect costs of too strict lockdowns OTOH are tremendous.
In reality, the US will probably have somewhere between 150 K and 200 K deaths by October 1, and that's with using severe lockdowns and severe social distancing measures starting the same late March date. Deaths may be higher than that if (as it looks like will be the case) the severe lockdowns and stay-at-home orders are soon relaxed to something more like the moderate distancing that they tried to simulate in the Chicago study.

Without the severe lockdowns, we might have had somewhere between 500 K to 1 M deaths, so severe-then-transition-to-moderate lockdowns saved somewhere between 300 K to 800 K lives. If it took severe lockdowns to save 300 K to 800 K lives, then the use of only moderate social distancing instead, would clearly have saved fewer than the above 300 K to 800 K estimated lives. Moderate social distancing might have saved only (just a ball park estimate using a factor of one-half) 150 K to 400 K lives, and would not have saved 1.76 M lives after all. And in fact, taking only modest social distancing measures probably would have lost quite a few lives versus the actual severe shutdowns that we did have (but also cost the economy substantially less).

What would have been more interesting than this study based on a failed Imperial College model, would have been an alternate study (using a much better computer model, of course, if there even exists such a beast) that did a comparative study of the estimated saved lives from a modest social distancing approach (e.g., the approach they did study but with the wrong model) versus the estimated saved lives from the more severe economy-hobbling lockdown/stay-at-home approach that we actually did use (except for a few less densely populated states). And then the same approach to guess the value of the lives saved in each case, doing the accounting job of subtracting the estimated economic costs from the value of the saved lives, in each case. That would be a more interesting paper. Even without the exact accounting part, it might be interesting to see whether a more modest approach could even have done the job (without costing too many lives).

Probably the more important takeaway is that the use of more severe lockdowns saved additional lives that were (supposedly) worth $4.5 million each. We're probably going to pay at least $9 trillion in government funds (not to mention further damage to the GDP and lost family incomes) as a result of the severe lockdowns. Divide those two and you get 2 million lives worth of "human value" as the minimal cost that we're actually paying (but actually more when you consider GDP and lost family income). So if you wanted to be crass about it, as well as accepting this paper's evaluation of the worth of life, then we "supposedly" (to break even, is that what one would call it?) would have needed to save 2 million lives to make it all worthwhile. Ironically, that brings us right back to the potential 2 million lives lost that was the touted prediction of the Imperial College model that scared us into the lockdowns in the first place. And although the 1.76 million predicted lives saved (in this paper) by only modest social distancing is provably way off the mark, it would have taken more lives saved than that to "break even" according to this VSL method of valuing a life.

We actually took a more severe action that cost the economy more, but saved a lot more lives than modest social distancing would have saved (albeit we almost certainly didn't save 1.76 million lives, even with severe lockdowns). Perhaps that shows that Americans value the lives of Americans to the tune of about $18 million per life? When you look at it from that perspective, then the argument over whether or not to spend chump change to give everybody that needs it ObamaCare, seems in retrospect to be like a childrens' playground quarrel.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,624
Reaction score
481
Points
83
I wouldn't mind having separate columns for dates of {onset of symptoms, test administered, test result received back} but then again, I probably am one of the few that wants that detail. And the problem would be that if Florida gave that, they might be the only state doing so anyway, so what's the use. Reading between the lines of the article, it looked like that new date-of-symptoms had "no data" values in most columns anyway. Because they mostly had Jan 1 dates, and nobody had symptoms yet at that time, so that's just gotta be the signifier of "do not know", that is, "no data." Not worth much if mostly missing data.

She did have a masters degree, so I doubt she's as dumb as you're guessing. She can probably get a job implementing the ESRI template at some other state that gets along with her better, I suppose.
Well she was fired for not doing what DeSantis was asking. So obviously, he and the rest of them have decided the next best route has been to attack her credibility. And I have pulled multiple articles that have mentioned her work on the dashboard. It doesn't sound like it was an "out of the box" plug and play system as PE wants you to believe. If that were the case....more and more states would have had similar setups. Fact is.....Florida was acknowledged early on by Dr. Brix for their dashboard and the amount of information that was available. Jones was behind the dashboard from the beginning. I believe pompous called her nothing more than a junior data entry person. Sounds like a fair assessment, huh?

On a side note....and Georgia has been criticized for this. I am not sure if this was the issue Florida had in this situation.....but on the topic of when to count positive tests. Seems fairly simple. Count them when they test positive. Trying to bring other factors in muddies the water. Georgia has been trying to back date them to when they first started noticing symptoms, and it's causing problems. They are showing different daily counts. They wanted to do this to show declining numbers as they opened up the state.....but almost no other states are doing it this way.

 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,025
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
You should actually put that on a sign and parade around in front of Walz's house on Summit Ave. I recommend you not immitate the Michigan Capitol protesters, though, i.e., leave your Confederate flag and rifle at home.
Not sure what the reason for your post was, but I am glad you kept it shorter than usual.
 
Top Bottom