Der Fuhrer Cuomo Says Eighty Percent Of New Yorkers Will Get The Virus

[pgardn]

There's some truths here and some falsehoods, and a lot of bull .

We are getting some facts from the CDC. We aren't getting all the variables so we cannot solve the equation. Either they don't care to inform us because of resources/time, or they have been instructed to not provide the information for some reason.

We keep seeing the number of infected increase while the recoveries stay at zero in the US. Why? The perhaps unintended consequence is that all people see is the bad, no one sees the good (that the overwhelmingly large percentage of people who contract this virus will recover in a few days, and that's the ones who have symptoms). This in turn leads to all the hand wringing and bleak outlooks you see here and elsewhere.

So we have 25-30K infections or so, how many recoveries? Surely someone who was diagnosed weeks ago has recovered, otherwise what's up with all the "advice from a recovered blah blah blah in Florida" nonsense?

I know we have a recovery from a + who went to the hospital took scans tested again. All said he had it.

But his family is not calling it a full recovery yet even though he feels fine.
They are being cautious and so are the docs as I think they fear relapse.
And i don’t know if they have tests to prove you have totally cleared the virus. Herpes, a very diff virus is never cleared by many. Imo they are being super cautious because the guy feels fine.

Not sure when we call people recovered or cured or whatever yet.

I had a relapse with mono as I started feeling fine and went back to school again and relapsed missing a whole semester. But again, a virus already known for causing relapses.
All anecdotal because that’s all I got on your question.

[midnightpulp]

And who has been promulgating the simplistic exponential method of estimation? All the experts except Leavitt?

I don't believe I was -- the range of the CDC estimate is quite wide, 40%-70%. For a novel pathogen, it makes sense that estimates will vary widely based on spotty information.

For example, had I taken the lower end of the CDC's estimate, 40%, woild that really be so out of whack contextually with the case you cited?

Yeah, 40 percent will eventually happen, but I don't it'll happen in one year. In California, we had our first case nearly 2 months ago. Up until mid-March, it was business as usual here. Casinos, bars, clubs, beaches, basketball games, etc packed. People mingling per usual. Based on exponential growth, the entirety of California should've been infected in fewer than 30 days. We didn't even take this thing really seriously until early March. Covid was left unchecked for a month in the most populated state and didn't "run away." We're currently at 1555 confirmed cases, despite not getting really serious with social distancing and stay-at-home efforts until mid-March. Sure, many cases out there not confirmed, but even if I'm off by a factor of 10, that's 100,000 cases in the state. And the bright side here is that means the case mortality rate will drop to very, very low levels, as deaths are recorded more accurately than cases, as this points out.

1) Deaths will be the most accurate number, as official records are kept on deaths. The number of cases is the inaccurate number. We have not been testing anywhere near enough people and therefore the number of cases will be substantially underestimated.

2) The people most likely to have been tested are those who have symptoms of the virus. This is a form of confirmation bias. It will pick up more cases than there are in the general population, but it will miss the mild cases among the general population and thus again underestimate the number of cases and overestimate the severity of cases.

https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/03/...facts-figures/

[Blake]

Infection rate is what this thread's about, dip .

Your thread le is a misleading lie right off the bat, dumb . Could=/=will. Hur dur.

[midnightpulp]

I appreciate the work mid has been putting in but I’m generally skeptical of armchair experts explaining why their logic and common sense trumps what the experts are saying... or that they are seeing something ALL the experts are missing

i hope he’s right though

More on this. I'm not trying to Dinning-Kruger, but experts are fallible, can be emotionally biased, and even petty. You're a legal expert, but I'm sure you've encountered peers in your field that also have the ESQ following their names who are just complete dumb s and you wonder how in the they're in the positions they're in.

And the media at large are giving more attention to the experts hyping the doomsday scenarios than the ones who aren't. There was a previous study to my linked University of Maryland study about how the Summer won't save us that made the rounds, despite it being a less robust study than University of Maryland's, who does have one of the top infectious disease programs in the country. The director of their virology department was key in figuring out AIDS/HIV:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo

[pgardn]

This is all good in one way.

People are reading about it and discussing it.
Maybe it helps the antivaccers to understand... uhhh maybe not.

[Spurtacular]

Your thread le is a misleading lie right off the bat, dumb . Could=/=will. Hur dur.

Oh, Blake. Corey not around to give you a good pillow fight?

[boutons_deux]

They live on top of each other in NYC
What a huge surprise.
Your compassion just knowing his figures are wrong is noted.

Throughout the sunbelt 10Ms live "on top of each other" in apartment complexes

[Blake]

hur dur, Blake. Hur dur?

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah, 40 percent will eventually happen, but I don't it'll happen in one year.

Tbf to Cuomo, he said 40-80% basically over the next 6,8,9 months.

I think he was just clumsily attempting to say this is now the 5th endemic human coronavirus, eventually most of the population will get it. There are far too many unknown variables for any model to accurately predict how long that will take.

[baseline bum]

Levitt seems to think so. Based on exponential modeling from the initial outbreak in China, all of the world should've been infected in 90 days. But as he states, that exponential growth can't continue indefinitely because we don't meet new people every day, we're taking precautions to limit spread, and, though this is speculation, some people might be naturally immune and/or the virus has a tougher time infecting them.

CDC isn't modeling exponential growth. The growth is only exponential at the very beginning when there aren't many to have gotten the virus and recovered / died, as the number of dead/recovered lowers the number of people who can be infected. It's still a very nasty high slope curve if nothing is done to limit the transfer of a virus like SARSCov2 that is so contagious though. Once they get on the other side of the maximum infected with a couple of weeks time delay after it makes sense to start opening the country back up as enough are infected / recovered / dead to limit transmission. Especially near the end when the infection rate becomes approximately an exponential decay.

[vy65]

And who has been promulgating the simplistic exponential method of estimation? All the experts except Leavitt?

I don't believe I was -- the range of the CDC estimate is quite wide, 40%-70%. For a novel pathogen, it makes sense that estimates will vary widely based on spotty information.

For example, had I taken the lower end of the CDC's estimate, 40%, woild that really be so out of whack contextually with the case you cited?

Chart from John Hopkins. You'll see that daily percentage increases in cases in decreasing, and this is despite there being more testing. Exponential growth means a 100 percent increase again and again and again until everyone is infected.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/i...?itok=5EY15fSK

That said, yes, everyone/majority will get infected by this disease. We've all had the common cold and flu, but it'll probably take years. But I'm doubtful it's going to happen in 6-12 month time frame.

Covid-19 isn't THAT transmissible.



That's a pretty low number that will guard against a "runaway scenario." There's certain areas prone to be runaway, like New York, because they're forced into more enclosed spaces due to population density and much more reliance on mass transit, but most of the country isn't built like New York.

Then there's the prospect of warmer weather slowing virality down, which will further reduce the probability of a runaway scenario. Sure you already saw my post, but here's the findings from the University of Maryland.

https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/...to-Thrive.html

That said, yes, places like New York are particularly vulnerable. They check all the boxes. High pop density, mass transit system, climate conducive to spread (remember, their flu transmission rate is 4.2x higher than Texas and California), probably resemble Italy to an extent where multiple generations of family live under the same roof, especially Italian Americans and such.

And yeah, even ideal areas where the virus won't spread much might get overwhelmed, but it'll be because of an insufficient healthcare system. The scenario I don't buy is 200 million infected and 1 million dead in a year. This is a stronger flu on top of the regular flu, and that is a problem in of itself.

Exponential growth would require that the rate of infection keep growing and an accelerating pace. Stagnant or linear growth is not exponential. Decreased, however slight, growth is not exponential either.

13.62586605
15.58901683
12.4303233
15.86046512
15.15261628
14.78106808
16.96837514
14.9765325
14.1947323
12.37206308
12.5306874
12.33622332
10.01669865
10.73189941
10.4535129
11.62511652
12.60346932
12.95446425
14.15036987

These are the percentages of positive tests for the US from March 4 to the 22nd. These reflect the increases in testing. By way of example, there were approximately 866 tests with either a positive or negative result (103 remained pending) on March 4. That number rose to 7,031 tests with results (563 pending) on March 11. On March 18, the numbers were 73,956 tests with a positive or negative result (2,538 remained pending). And on March 22, there were 225,351 tests with results (2,842 remained pending). As many have said, the numbers were expected to rise with more testing.

The numbers show a consistent range of positive results of about 12%. The percentage of positive results has, so far, peaked at about 16% on the 10th, dropped down to 10.5% on the 18th, and has ticked up to 14% on the 22nd. What these numbers show is the percentage of positive results hovering in the 10-16% range. What they do not show is exponential growth -- and that's telling as the number of tests ramped up from about 900 on the 4th to over 225,000 on the 22nd.

[vy65]

Numbers courtesy of https://covidtracking.com/data/

[vy65]

And to be clear, those numbers are ulative - meaning that as of March 22, a total of 225,351 have been performed since March 4 -- not that 225,351 tests were performed on March 22.

[DarrinS]

Numbers courtesy of https://covidtracking.com/data/

Bookmarked. Thanks

[Reck]

What percent of NY will become infected?

Not 85%

That number is just wacky.

[DarrinS]

Just the knowledge of a novel virus in the community would kill exponential growth.

Can you imagine if this thing STARTED in NYC?

[vy65]

And, there's an argument that NYC, Seattle, and NJ should be excluded from the percentages. They are farther along in their growth than other cities, have climates that are particularly conducive to the virus, and have some of the highest population densities in the world. Austin, or Nashville, or Atlanta, or San Diego will be ahead of the curve - compared to those locations - from the availability of testing alone, let alone the other factors.

[DarrinS]

Just for reference, Wuhan is larger than NYC. 12M compared to 8.5M

[Spurtacular]

Not 85%

That number is just wacky.

One number said 56 percent of Californians would get it. My immediate thought was that's bull sh**.

One headline said everyone will get it. But I don't read much of the propaganda outside of catching headlines.

[Blake]

One number said 56 percent of Californians would get it. My immediate thought was that's bull sh**.

One headline said everyone will get it. But I don't read much of the propaganda outside of catching headlines.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=could+versus+would

[rascal]

Don't worry, WReck. Dude's selling snake oil.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/574277/...arns-12-weeks/

They will over time. Maybe two or three years as it may subside during the warmer months and come back every winter.

[Spurtacular]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=could+versus+would

Show me the article; since you're acting like you're knowing sh**.

[Spurtacular]

They will over time. Maybe two or three years as it may subside during the warmer months and come back every winter.

So, it's like the flu. Glad we could shut down the world for something so minor.

[Reck]

So, it's like the flu. Glad we could shut down the world for something so minor.

It will be just like any virus. There will be a vaccine that people can take and be immune hopefully. Coronavirus is not going away. It will just be stopped like Polio or any known curable disease that's out there now.

[Spurtacular]

It will be just like any virus. There will be a vaccine that people can take and be immune hopefully. Coronavirus is not going away. It will just be stopped like Polio or any known curable disease that's out there now.

I'm not debating that. There's zero need to shut down the world. Laws should be made to allow people over 50 to take leaves of absence and receive renumeration. Democrats don't care about sensible solutions.