No....not political.

I was wondering....in the history of all of the world's really bad plagues/pandemics, how many occurred during a time when we had enough scientific knowledge to understand at least how it was spread?

I think it was the Black Death that was spread by the fleas on the backs of rates and other vermin. But how long did it take to figure this out? Did they ever figure it out at the time or did that understanding come later?

I ask because I wonder if a modern civilization will ever really see the kind of exponential number death numbers thrown out by some early models when we at least have the ability to very quickly figure out how it is spread.

I cannot help but wonder if the nightmare models undersell the modern civilization's capacity to change behavior quickly based upon its awareness of simply how it is spread.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

There were no 'nightmare models' per se, but there were 'nightmare projections' within the models that were correctly stated in the models as being "unlikely". HTH

---

Did you, though?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Probably not. It's hard to break through granite.

---

My original post ended with a question. What granite do you have to break through in order to answer it one way or the other?

My only critique of any model is that, in a society modern enough to understand simply how the virus is spread, do they undersell the society's ability to quickly adapt?

Since germ theory was established in the 19th century and viruses were discovered in the late 19th century, I am pretty sure we understood how the 1918, 1958, swine flus were spread.

There were mask laws in place during the 1918 flu pandemic and "mask slackers" (as they were known) were a problem then as well. Difference is back then we would arrest you.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-mayor-oakland-was-arrested-failing-wear-mask-180974950/

Hell I got mocked for saying it would be at least 100,000k.

And that 2.2 million number wasnt just based on doing nothing it was also the high side of the confidence interval.

amercer said:

---

To your point, any model from a respected group that predicts catastrophe without action is almost certainly going to be "wrong", because action will be taken.

Models based on early or incomplete data will also be bad. Being bad doesn't make them useless though. If you were a leader facing a crisis, would you prefer no information, or a model you knew was wrong but was probably in the ballpark?

People mock the 2.2 million number now, but would anyone be surprised if we hit 500k before there was a vaccine? That's not that far off.

---

Yes quite surprised if we hit 500,000 within the next 5 years.

amercer said:

---

To your point, any model from a respected group that predicts catastrophe without action is almost certainly going to be "wrong", because action will be taken.

Models based on early or incomplete data will also be bad. Being bad doesn't make them useless though. If you were a leader facing a crisis, would you prefer no information, or a model you knew was wrong but was probably in the ballpark?

People mock the 2.2 million number now, but would anyone be surprised if we hit 500k before there was a vaccine? That's not that far off.

---

I would be very surprised, shocked even, if we hit 500K considering that 43% of US COVID deaths (through May 22) have been from nursing homes. These facilities comprise only 0.6% of the US population total. Hitting 500K would require a fundamental shift in who is dying of this virus.

The 2.2 million number was for no action at all, I believe.

I don't think anyone thought no action at all would be taken, but it's a reasonable thing to model. If no action at all meant 10k deaths total then the case for no action would have been pretty strong. So it's good to have an idea of the bounds even if you know those bounds won't happen in real life.

Presumably the people of Brazil know how the virus is spread.

The people of this country should know at this point that wearing a mask drastically slows spread down, and yet...

In hindsight the total shutdown was unwarranted. It was also understandable based on the very limited data we had. However I don't think that the absence of official action would have made things better. Human history shows that relying on individuals to make decisions that solely benefit the group is almost always a disaster. Tragedy of the commons and whatnot.

People can't even bother to turn their headlights on in the rain so expecting the masses to wash hands and stay away from each other is a stretch.

And yet its still currently working. There are still many people who aren't even in the at risk category keeping their distance and not living life at all. I think you'd be surprised at how much voluntary action has been taken, and will continue to be just out of fear and misinformation. For us here in Texas, we didn't need a lick of government intervention. I'd have been on board for a max of the 15 day initial lockdown to flatten of the curve, and then MAYBE okay with implementing social distancing(6 foot rule) along with maybe limiting capacity at most places to 50% or so for a couple more weeks. This was before we really knew what we were up against. But after the initial 15 days, and then easing back in for a couple more weeks, we needed it to get out of our way.

Other than giving the public a general knowledge and awareness of the virus and what they can do. I think you'd be surprised at what just a little, mild social distancing would have done for 99% of the country. Some would have lost their jobs due to lack of consumer spending, but nothing on this scale.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised at 500k deaths at all. Don't forget, 14 million people will die in the US the next 5 years, COVID or no COVID.

I said from the beginning I bet it's at least 250k. But alas, most underestimate how many actually die in a country of 329 million people each damn day, month, and year. 7600+ per day, 233k+ per month, and 2.8mm+ per year. So no, 500k over the next 5 years wouldn't shock me one bit. Even if a vaccine comes, you'll still have some dying after the fact in all likelihood. We aren't vaccinating 329 million people any time soon. We can get it to some and greatly slow it, but not everyone. Either way........

How many of those 500k, or the current 100k, or 250k if that's what it ends up being, would have died this year anyways? My guess is anywhere from 40-75%. When 20% die in a nursing home each year, and COVID attacks a nursing home causing 7% of them to die, it's quite logical to think nearly all of those 7% were in the 20% that would have been gone this year.

I'd also bet 90% of them gone in the next 18 months. When the average age of death by COVID is what, 82? It's clear what this is doing. Either way, nothing was worth the destruction already done. Even if 500k die from it over the next 5 years. That's in reality nothing for a 329mm population over that time period. As cold hearted as that may make me sound. No, it was not worth our way of life, our economy, any of it.

swc93 said:

---

People can't even bother to turn their headlights on in the rain so expecting the masses to wash hands and stay away from each other is a stretch.

---

Or worse, put on their hazards and become more dangerous

Duncan Idaho said:

---

swc93 said:

---

People can't even bother to turn their headlights on in the rain so expecting the masses to wash hands and stay away from each other is a stretch.

---

Or worse, put on their hazards and become more dangerous

---

Two more reasons to stay home under the blankets.

Squadron7 said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

swc93 said:

---

People can't even bother to turn their headlights on in the rain so expecting the masses to wash hands and stay away from each other is a stretch.

---

Or worse, put on their hazards and become more dangerous

---

Two more reasons to stay home under the blankets.

---

Seriously this joke triggered you?

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

swc93 said:

---

People can't even bother to turn their headlights on in the rain so expecting the masses to wash hands and stay away from each other is a stretch.

---

Or worse, put on their hazards and become more dangerous

---

Two more reasons to stay home under the blankets.

---

Seriously this joke triggered you?

---

Not as much as the African American man telling me to leash my dog this morning...but, yeah, a little.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Hell I got mocked for saying it would be at least 100,000k.

---

Well 100,000K is 100,000,000 or 100 Million...

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Hell I got mocked for saying it would be at least 100,000k.

And that 2.2 million number wasnt just based on doing nothing it was also the high side of the confidence interval.

---

Plenty of people saying it would be less than the flu, which in the worst year of the last 10 claimed an estimated 61K lives in America. But don't worry, if that is proven wrong you just just claim all deaths are being falsely contributed to Covid or it's government suppression and the numbers are fake.

Well, the CDCs numbers were 79k at one point. It says that in that link. Even they admit estimating and not knowing.

On the other hand, if you look at how much estimation goes into this, it makes you question how accurate it all is. Flu, COVID, Pneumonia, all of it. Readjusting their numbers a long time after the fact. How do we have any clue what COVID is? When 233k American's die per month, it's usually the weakest and oldest American's. COVID is known for attacking the weakest and oldest. So how many of these would have passed during this time period anyways? Not claiming conspiracy, but that's a complete unknown.

Either way, they readjusted to 61k deaths. Still quite a bit.

Which is why it is also difficult to suggest the economy's slow down is solely the fault of the shut down. There would have been a significant drop in bar/restaurant traffic, air travel, etc. through voluntary self isolation even if there were no shut downs. Of course nothing to this scale, but 1918 research indicates a significant number of businesses went under in places that didn't shut down.