I don't think they're making false assumptions, they're just coming at it from a purely statistical perspective. Their numbers aren't designed to do what you're asking of them. You could presumably break this down further for different demographics considering age, location, population density, etc., and that would change some of the numbers you're putting into the equation, but you also can't get herd immunity in a subset of the population.AG81xx said:
I don't really have any arguments against their math and the science of how the virus spreads and can be eliminated , but it centers around the false assumption that the deadly and negative effects are spread evenly across the entire population. The 1 in 20 that requires hospital care is not true for all age groups. If you isolate the susceptible only , what does that mean for the rest of the population., does it become similar to the common cold and there is never a hospital crisis.
I still think many of these models aren't effectively breaking the population into sub groups that each have different outcomes.
Is the goal to stop the virus at all costs?; or to prevent as many deaths and permanent disabilities as possible while also preventing potentially more devastating economic related health crisis. Because so many deaths are associated with the elderly, I think you CAN do the later. Which this website doesn't specifically address.
From the CDC website;fig96 said:I don't think they're making false assumptions, they're just coming at it from a purely statistical perspective. Their numbers aren't designed to do what you're asking of them. You could presumably break this down further for different demographics considering age, location, population density, etc., and that would change some of the numbers you're putting into the equation, but you also can't get herd immunity in a subset of the population.AG81xx said:
I don't really have any arguments against their math and the science of how the virus spreads and can be eliminated , but it centers around the false assumption that the deadly and negative effects are spread evenly across the entire population. The 1 in 20 that requires hospital care is not true for all age groups. If you isolate the susceptible only , what does that mean for the rest of the population., does it become similar to the common cold and there is never a hospital crisis.
I still think many of these models aren't effectively breaking the population into sub groups that each have different outcomes.
Is the goal to stop the virus at all costs?; or to prevent as many deaths and permanent disabilities as possible while also preventing potentially more devastating economic related health crisis. Because so many deaths are associated with the elderly, I think you CAN do the later. Which this website doesn't specifically address.
I feel like people also miss that exceeding hospital capacity effects everyone, not just those in the hospital with COVID.
I'd think the goal is both, to prevent overwhelming the hospital system in the short term and completely eliminate the virus in the longer term. How to approach that is easier said than done.
AG81xx said:From the CDC website;fig96 said:I don't think they're making false assumptions, they're just coming at it from a purely statistical perspective. Their numbers aren't designed to do what you're asking of them. You could presumably break this down further for different demographics considering age, location, population density, etc., and that would change some of the numbers you're putting into the equation, but you also can't get herd immunity in a subset of the population.AG81xx said:
I don't really have any arguments against their math and the science of how the virus spreads and can be eliminated , but it centers around the false assumption that the deadly and negative effects are spread evenly across the entire population. The 1 in 20 that requires hospital care is not true for all age groups. If you isolate the susceptible only , what does that mean for the rest of the population., does it become similar to the common cold and there is never a hospital crisis.
I still think many of these models aren't effectively breaking the population into sub groups that each have different outcomes.
Is the goal to stop the virus at all costs?; or to prevent as many deaths and permanent disabilities as possible while also preventing potentially more devastating economic related health crisis. Because so many deaths are associated with the elderly, I think you CAN do the later. Which this website doesn't specifically address.
I feel like people also miss that exceeding hospital capacity effects everyone, not just those in the hospital with COVID.
I'd think the goal is both, to prevent overwhelming the hospital system in the short term and completely eliminate the virus in the longer term. How to approach that is easier said than done.
'Cumulative COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates since March 1, 2020, are updated weekly. The overall cumulative hospitalization rate is 40.4 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years and older (131.6 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (63.7 per 100,000)".
This is NO WHERE close to 1 in 20.
While their model is slick and the math may be correct, their basic argument centers around not overwhelming hospitals. This is what they said in their modeling: "Around 1 in 20 people infected with COVID-19 need to go to an ICU (Intensive Care Unit).13 In a rich country like the USA, there's 1 ICU bed per 3400 people.14 Therefore, the USA can handle 20 out of 3400 people being simultaneously infected or, 0.6% of the population."
Unless I'm missing something, I think they not only missed on one of the most important input parameters, but again aren't considering how some of these parameters cannot be treated as universal across the US.
While I learn something from everyone one of these modeling websites, I also know from experience that most models have logic errors or incorrect assumptions that overwhelm their accuracy and thus their usefulness.
So looks like they used some old data there which I agree should be updated, though they do mention that it isn't uniform across the population. But again, you're asking it to do something that it isn't trying to do, this is intended as a simplistic view of how spread can happen/change across a general population.Quote:
"Percentage of COVID-19 cases in the United States from February 12 to March 16, 2020 that required intensive care unit (ICU) admission, by age group". Between 4.9% to 11.5% of all COVID-19 cases required ICU. Generously picking the lower range, that's 5% or 1 in 20. Note that this total is specific to the US's age structure, and will be higher in countries with older populations, lower in countries with younger populations.
No telling how many lives were saved by wearing those masks on the beach at Mustang Island State Park.....Duncan Idaho said:ClickClackAg31 said:
This is actually a really good website. Really informative and I like how they let you play with the settings.
In a nutshell, these guys are saying we need to get contact tracing ready before we lift the lockdown, else we're going to have a second spike.
BUT, summer will push it down, hygiene pushes it down, masks push it down, etc. Ideally you combine all of those you get the R0 less than 1 and we beat this thing until the vaccine comes out.
Good plan. Best case for all of us is we can't get this thing after we beat it once. If we can get reinfected, we'll need a vaccine to officially get this thing down and we'll have to get one every year like the flu.
But muh freedoms
