Bad News Thread

dad4 said:
So you are looking at cumulative numbers instead of the recent average?

Nice way to hide any March differences underneath a pile of December cases.

I am still disgusted by TX tossing the mask rule, and by CA opening dining. I am not sure what you're trying to prove by comparing the two states, but both have bad policies this month.

SCC may be starting to tick back up. Cases were up yesterday and today. Should have been down because of the weekend. We will know for sure in a week or two.

We opened indoor dining 2 weeks ago, in case you were wondering.
Click to expand...
If the European scenario holds true, anywhere which has roughly less than 50% (give or take 10%) seroprevalence (from either vaccine immunity or natural immunity) should see at least a bump in cases irrespective of policies, given the spreading variants. LA is over the Spain/Belgium threshold...scc is not.
 
Grace T. said:
If the European scenario holds true, anywhere which has roughly less than 50% (give or take 10%) seroprevalence (from either vaccine immunity or natural immunity) should see at least a bump in cases irrespective of policies, given the spreading variants. LA is over the Spain/Belgium threshold...scc is not.
Click to expand...
Almost nowhere in the US is “less than 50%, give or take 10%” seroprevalence.

Oregon is at 3.8% confirmed. You only catch about 1/5, so maybe 19% total infections. Add in the 21% vaccinated, subtract the overlap, and you’re still almost at 40%.

Does that make them at risk? They made it through the winter and went into decline at something below 19%. For them, with their behavior, the base virus had an effective R < 1.23. 60% reduction in transmission or so.

Now they have close to 40%, and climbing. Soon they’ll be at 50%. (when 38% are vaccinated.)

Even for a variant with R0=5, that 60% reduction means effective R=2. And herd immunity at 50%, where they will be in not too long.

But, with current behavior, I don’t think Oregon sees a significant spike from any variant which is vulnerable to the vaccine.

The Dakotas are the opposite. They ran their seroprevalence right up to 60% or so. effective R = 2.5. Only a 17% reduction from behavior.

Give them a variant with R0=5, and their behavior only cuts it down to effective R= 4.16. Without that behavior reduction, they end up needing a much higher level for herd immunity. 1- 1/R = .76. Will happen around when they hit 40% vaccinated. Almost the same.

If I did the math right, If you’ve gone through an R0=3 spike, you seem to be vulnerable to an R0=5 variant up until you have 40% or so vaccinated. It doesn’t matter whether you infected your way through the spike or solved it with behavior.

Theoretically, the Dakotas could avoid a variant spike entirely by adopting different behavior for the next 2 months. That won’t happen. The Dakotas will Dakota.
 
Grace T. said:
If the European scenario holds true, anywhere which has roughly less than 50% (give or take 10%) seroprevalence (from either vaccine immunity or natural immunity) should see at least a bump in cases irrespective of policies, given the spreading variants. LA is over the Spain/Belgium threshold...scc is not.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. The states/regions that have done reasonably well, CO, WA, OR, Bay Area of CA are liable to see a bump up with the more infectious variant becoming dominant.
 
dad4 said:
Almost nowhere in the US is “less than 50%, give or take 10%” seroprevalence.

Oregon is at 3.8% confirmed. You only catch about 1/5, so maybe 19% total infections. Add in the 21% vaccinated, subtract the overlap, and you’re still almost at 40%.

Does that make them at risk? They made it through the winter and went into decline at something below 19%. For them, with their behavior, the base virus had an effective R < 1.23. 60% reduction in transmission or so.

Now they have close to 40%, and climbing. Soon they’ll be at 50%. (when 38% are vaccinated.)

Even for a variant with R0=5, that 60% reduction means effective R=2. And herd immunity at 50%, where they will be in not too long.

But, with current behavior, I don’t think Oregon sees a significant spike from any variant which is vulnerable to the vaccine.

The Dakotas are the opposite. They ran their seroprevalence right up to 60% or so. effective R = 2.5. Only a 17% reduction from behavior.

Give them a variant with R0=5, and their behavior only cuts it down to effective R= 4.16. Without that behavior reduction, they end up needing a much higher level for herd immunity. 1- 1/R = .76. Will happen around when they hit 40% vaccinated. Almost the same.

If I did the math right, If you’ve gone through an R0=3 spike, you seem to be vulnerable to an R0=5 variant up until you have 40% or so vaccinated. It doesn’t matter whether you infected your way through the spike or solved it with behavior.

Theoretically, the Dakotas could avoid a variant spike entirely by adopting different behavior for the next 2 months. That won’t happen. The Dakotas will Dakota.
Click to expand...
Math is solid but europe seems to disagree. Finland and Norway made it through the winter too...now look at them. Czechia was praised for being the most conscientious in the world...they are one of the few places in the west that the hospital system actually did come close to collapse and had a third wave.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
I was thinking the same thing. The states/regions that have done reasonably well, CO, WA, OR, Bay Area of CA are liable to see a bump up with the more infectious variant becoming dominant.
Click to expand...
Question is how quickly the vaccines ramp up. As dad points out part of the problem is their vaccines are a ss. The seroprevalence count in Los Angeles raw in January was at 45%. Adjusted for self selection they adjusted down to just under 41%. With vaccination and new infections we should be right in the 50% ballpark.
 
Here’s another thing to factor in. All South America right now is rising and Peru (which has been at the brink of economic collapse due to some of the harshest lockdowns in the world) is hitting new record highs. So it’s happening there too

Mexico has plateaued. If it turns upward it may not affect SoCal and az too much due to the high seroprevalence but Texas might very well get hit again.If Mexico follows the same pattern as last year the border crisis could well merge into a covid crisis in the next month.
 
Grace T. said:
Math is solid but europe seems to disagree. Finland and Norway made it through the winter too...now look at them. Czechia was praised for being the most conscientious in the world...they are one of the few places in the west that the hospital system actually did come close to collapse and had a third wave.
Click to expand...
Finland hasn't vaccinated 21% of their pop, and won't hit 40% for a while.

If Oregon were at 5% vaccinated, they'd be facing a bump, too.

The big weakness is the assumption that Oregon doesn't change behavior. If they start acting like SD, they're in trouble.
 
Grace T. said:
Question is how quickly the vaccines ramp up. As dad points out part of the problem is their vaccines are a ss. The seroprevalence count in Los Angeles raw in January was at 45%. Adjusted for self selection they adjusted down to just under 41%. With vaccination and new infections we should be right in the 50% ballpark.
Click to expand...
Where do you get 50%?

Just pull the number out of thin air, or is there actual analysis behind it?
 
dad4 said:
Where do you get 50%?

Just pull the number out of thin air, or is there actual analysis behind it?
Click to expand...
It’s the estimation of the Seroprevalence in Spain and Belgium. The London school estimated Spain at 58% but the ministry of health has then at 46%
 
Grace T. said:
It’s the estimation of the Seroprevalence in Spain and Belgium. The London school estimated Spain at 58% but the ministry of health has then at 46%
Click to expand...
Ps. If seroprevalence in Los Angeles really was at 40 ish % in January it has to be near 50% by now with vaccination and new cases.

New York City is the test case. They were at close to 30% after the first wave. They didn’t have a major second wave but had to have added at least 20% by now and with vaccinations higher. If there’s a substantial rise in New York City either so seroprevalence numbers are wrong or something else is afoot...otherwise what we’d expect to see is worse case a plateau or very stubborn decline
 
Grace T. said:
It’s the estimation of the Seroprevalence in Spain and Belgium. The London school estimated Spain at 58% but the ministry of health has then at 46%
Click to expand...
That’s where they are topping out, based on their infrastructure and their behavior.

Why would it not be higher or lower in other places with different infrastructure and different behavior?

Put another way, if you are at 60% already, that means a weak variant drove you to high seroprevalence. Why are you assuming that a stronger variant won’t drive you even higher?
 
dad4 said:
That’s where they are topping out, based on their infrastructure and their behavior.

Why would it not be higher or lower in other places with different infrastructure and different behavior?

Put another way, if you are at 60% already, that means a weak variant drove you to high seroprevalence. Why are you assuming that a stronger variant won’t drive you even higher?
Click to expand...
Because behavior doesn’t seem to have much impact. I thought Sweden was suppose to be the big bad state that went for herd immunity and Norway and Finland were the good guys that were careful? At least that was the narrative. I agree infrastructure plus demographics and climate have a bigger impact that can drive the number different. I agree that stronger variants can drive that threshold higher and we might still see a rise in Spain or Belgium. However if half the brush is gone, it makes it much harder for a fire to take off which is why Belgium has plateaued but unlike neighbors France Germany or Netherlands is not accelerating yet...it takes longer to get the fire started...and in the us as you and I predicted we are thus in a vaccine race against a third wave. Where you and I disagree is on the degree of impact behavior has: all Europe is pretty much going to end in the same place as is all South America
 
Grace T. said:
Because behavior doesn’t seem to have much impact. I thought Sweden was suppose to be the big bad state that went for herd immunity and Norway and Finland were the good guys that were careful? At least that was the narrative. I agree infrastructure plus demographics and climate have a bigger impact that can drive the number different. I agree that stronger variants can drive that threshold higher and we might still see a rise in Spain or Belgium. However if half the brush is gone, it makes it much harder for a fire to take off which is why Belgium has plateaued but unlike neighbors France Germany or Netherlands is not accelerating yet...it takes longer to get the fire started...and in the us as you and I predicted we are thus in a vaccine race against a third wave. Where you and I disagree is on the degree of impact behavior has: all Europe is pretty much going to end in the same place as is all South America
Click to expand...
You can argue how much is infrastructure and how much is behavior, but Oregon has the same variant and about a third the case rate of the Dakotas. It seems obvious that something has an impact.
 
dad4 said:
You can argue how much is infrastructure and how much is behavior, but Oregon has the same variant and about a third the case rate of the Dakotas. It seems obvious that something has an impact.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the third factor which is climate and weather. There’s a fourth too which is serendipity.

Los Angeles did everything you wanted them too yet got a bad result for the worst costs in the nation. Finland and Norway pretty much escaped everything until now. Czechia did everything right and the media fawned all over them and they are the worst in Europe. Everywhere in Europe will end the same regardless of government policy. If the distinguishing factor is do “everything right” plus don’t get a variant plus don’t have your government screw up vaccines and maybe you’ll avoid a bad outcome, well then 1/3 of your great formula is purely dependent on luck.
 
Desert Hound said:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear and consistent in its social distancing recommendation: To reduce the risk of contracting the coronavirus, people should remain at least six feet away from others who are not in their households. The guideline holds whether you are eating in a restaurant, lifting weights at a gym or learning long division in a fourth-grade classroom.
The guideline has been especially consequential for schools, many of which have not fully reopened because they do not have enough space to keep students six feet apart.
Now, spurred by a better understanding of how the virus spreads and a growing concern about the harms of keeping children out of school, some public health experts are calling on the agency to reduce the recommended distance in schools from six feet to three.
"It never struck me that six feet was particularly sensical in the context of mitigation," said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. "I wish the C.D.C. would just come out and say this is not a major issue."
On Sunday, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on CNN that the C.D.C. was reviewing the matter.
The origin of the six-foot distancing recommendation is something of a mystery. "It's almost like it was pulled out of thin air," said Linsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission at Virginia Tech University."
Click to expand...
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
 
dad4 said:
Almost nowhere in the US is “less than 50%, give or take 10%” seroprevalence.

Oregon is at 3.8% confirmed. You only catch about 1/5, so maybe 19% total infections. Add in the 21% vaccinated, subtract the overlap, and you’re still almost at 40%.

Does that make them at risk? They made it through the winter and went into decline at something below 19%. For them, with their behavior, the base virus had an effective R < 1.23. 60% reduction in transmission or so.

Now they have close to 40%, and climbing. Soon they’ll be at 50%. (when 38% are vaccinated.)

Even for a variant with R0=5, that 60% reduction means effective R=2. And herd immunity at 50%, where they will be in not too long.

But, with current behavior, I don’t think Oregon sees a significant spike from any variant which is vulnerable to the vaccine.

The Dakotas are the opposite. They ran their seroprevalence right up to 60% or so. effective R = 2.5. Only a 17% reduction from behavior.

Give them a variant with R0=5, and their behavior only cuts it down to effective R= 4.16. Without that behavior reduction, they end up needing a much higher level for herd immunity. 1- 1/R = .76. Will happen around when they hit 40% vaccinated. Almost the same.

If I did the math right, If you’ve gone through an R0=3 spike, you seem to be vulnerable to an R0=5 variant up until you have 40% or so vaccinated. It doesn’t matter whether you infected your way through the spike or solved it with behavior.

Theoretically, the Dakotas could avoid a variant spike entirely by adopting different behavior for the next 2 months. That won’t happen. The Dakotas will Dakota.
Click to expand...
And the R-squared, deaths vs. cases?
 
dad4 said:
That’s where they are topping out, based on their infrastructure and their behavior.

Why would it not be higher or lower in other places with different infrastructure and different behavior?

Put another way, if you are at 60% already, that means a weak variant drove you to high seroprevalence. Why are you assuming that a stronger variant won’t drive you even higher?
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming that a stronger variant will drive you even higher?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top