Wuhan Virus Model Sees Another Dramatic Downward Revision

[capo]

Lao Tzu was a philosopher and founder of Taoism.

Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War"

I know...I know we all look alike

[sd_shooter]

No, you are mixing terminology because you're treating the "flu season" and the COVID-19 spread as comparable phenomena. This is the ambiguity at the heart of equivocation -- a linguistic sleight-of-hand that leads to an inappropriate comparison.

However, on review I will concede that a potentially better identification for the logical fallacy is the related one of false equivalence.

I'm not saying: The Flu season is the same as the Covid outbreak
I'm attemping to say: The IHME forecast for Covid deaths in TX is very close to a typical death count from the Flu

No terminology, no linguistics, no sleight of hand.

More importantly, why am I pointing this out? Because we don't stop business for the Flu, ever, nor do we stop it for the countless other deaths that occur every year. The 'models' have finally caught up with reality because they're likely not even being used any more - they're probably just simple extrapolations (and yes, I'm saying that without direct evidence )

With regard to your updates, I will pick specifically on the magical thinking inherent in Texas "maybe" having peaked in Nov-Jan. There is no credible evidence to support this, only a claim made or amplified in the mass media. I will of course agree that the first incidence of the disease could have been here earlier, but it goes without saying that no huge growth pattern went unnoticed, not in Texas and not anywhere else. Look at how little it took for Taiwan to figure out something was up, and then figure out how we could have missed a contagion that actually provided some solid herd immunity. Don't bank on this fantasy, it's not so.

True, it's impossible to say what happened in TX. Did we catch it earlier? Is it due to the warmer more humid climate? Lack of mass transit? Spread out population? I've talked to all my neighbors and many of them report being sick over the winter. *shrug* Again - why did I throw out such a guess? Because you had pointed out that TX is behind other states. I'm not looking at other states, only the IHME TX forecast and a typical TX flu.

I know you like to give these models the benefit of the doubt but this year we've seen an economic disaster unlike any in history driven by faulty models. They weren't off by just a little.

2 Million dead
200k dead
80k dead
60k dead

Clearly the Fauci estimates are a fantasy. Things are very quiet in our neck of the woods and that's a reality.

[Dirtlaw]

Orange County had a huge drop today as well.

[as_rocketman]

Not trying to be argumentative, I think I see your point -- but this is still instructive.

I'm not saying: The Flu season is the same as the Covid outbreak
I'm attemping to say: The IHME forecast for Covid deaths in TX is very close to a typical death count from the Flu

No terminology, no linguistics, no sleight of hand.

Agreed, so far. The values are comparable.

But then we do this:

More importantly, why am I pointing this out? Because we don't stop business for the Flu, ever, nor do we stop it for the countless other deaths that occur every year.

Here's the equivocation. Just because the numbers are equivalent doesn't mean that we should respond to them in the same way.

We don't stop the world for a typical flu year because it won't make much difference. The flu is everywhere and normal therapy is usually effective on severe cases.

COVID-19, on the other hand, had and still has a substantial probability of going high order on us. The fact that our current target is comparable to a normal flu year (in some jurisdictions) isn't the point at all, and no policy decisions are being made on this basis.

In other words, it's about cost vs. benefit. The reward of trying hard to squelch a single flu season is pretty well bounded. The benefit of not letting this new beastie sweep the globe is potentially on a whole different plane.

And that's where equivocation sets in. The fault in reasoning is to assume that policy is being set on the sheer number of fatalities, which is wrong. Thus, reducing both comparatives to this single statistic is a logical error.

I know you like to give these models the benefit of the doubt but this year we've seen an economic disaster unlike any in history driven by faulty models. They weren't off by just a little.

2 Million dead
200k dead
80k dead
60k dead

Clearly the Fauci estimates are a fantasy. Things are very quiet in our neck of the woods and that's a reality.

I've written about this elsewhere, including this thread. The fact that things are quiet is good news -- they aren't quiet everywhere.

I would also opine that there might well be some critical behaviors of this virus that aren't being captured properly in the models, and therefore some conservatism is needed, which is then misinterpreted as "error" when the model is used incorrectly. But we've seen in New York, in Italy, etc. that the potential for a major disaster is definitely there. It's entirely possible that some unmodeled x-factor exists that explains Texas, CA, etc... but it's equally possible that we just need to be more patient. It's still early in the game.

[sd_shooter]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Here's the equivocation. Just because the numbers are equivalent doesn't mean that we should respond to them in the same way.

We don't stop the world for a typical flu year because it won't make much difference. The flu is everywhere and normal therapy is usually effective on severe cases.

How can we say the existing therapies are effective when we have 60k deaths even during a regular flu season? I don't think it's effective at all.

Ever wonder how the regular flu kills? Read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-flu-actually-kill-people/

A nugget from the article.
If I didn't tell you that article was about the flu I bet you'd think it was about the covid. Sure they are different viruses but they behave exactly the same way! Catch covid? Flu-like symptoms. On deaths door? For the very same reasons as the flu.

COVID-19, on the other hand, had and still has a substantial probability of going high order on us. The fact that our current target is comparable to a normal flu year (in some jurisdictions) isn't the point at all, and no policy decisions are being made on this basis.

Actually it seems like the probability has been plummeting. The data is suggesting it and so are the models.

Policy decisions will likely be made this week because things have gone so well. TX in particular will be among the first to start getting back to business.

In other words, it's about cost vs. benefit. The reward of trying hard to squelch a single flu season is pretty well bounded. The benefit of not letting this new beastie sweep the globe is potentially on a whole different plane.

Agree there regarding the flu.

On the second part, potentially is key. The models sure missed it by a mile.

Is it really "sweeping the globe"? We have 21k deaths in Italy now. How many deaths from the flu in Italy in a bad year? 25,000. We are still not there with the covid!
Source:

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(19)30328-5/fulltext

And that's where equivocation sets in. The fault in reasoning is to assume that policy is being set on the sheer number of fatalities, which is wrong. Thus, reducing both comparatives to this single statistic is a logical error.

Then what is it being set on? The initial estimate was millions of deaths, this kicked off the policy-setting.

One reason given was that we must avoid overwhelming hospitals. This could only happen if they incoming patients exceeded their capacity. This never happened, even in New York, yet the policies remain in place.

The deaths are indeed being used to set policy through fear. If policy were based on hospital capacity then we'd already be back at work.

I've written about this elsewhere, including this thread. The fact that things are quiet is good news -- they aren't quiet everywhere.

I would also opine that there might well be some critical behaviors of this virus that aren't being captured properly in the models, and therefore some conservatism is needed, which is then misinterpreted as "error" when the model is used incorrectly. But we've seen in New York, in Italy, etc. that the potential for a major disaster is definitely there. It's entirely possible that some unmodeled x-factor exists that explains Texas, CA, etc... but it's equally possible that we just need to be more patient. It's still early in the game.

I'd opine that you've allowed some of that fear to take root in you. Read the link I showed about how the flu kills, perhaps it will show how covid and flu are perhaps more comparable than we've been led to believe.

[as_rocketman]

How can we say the existing therapies are effective when we have 60k deaths even during a regular flu season? I don't think it's effective at all.

This is more equivocation. You don't score how effective therapy is by the number of fatalities. At the very least, you should normalize by the number of infected or hospitalized. I could just as easily claim that my magic spells are highly effective against wombats, since there's never been one in my yard...

Antivirals and system support for the regular flu are estimated at about 90% effective in severe cases. We have nothing like that for COVID-19.

Ever wonder how the regular flu kills? Read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-flu-actually-kill-people/

A nugget from the article.


If I didn't tell you that article was about the flu I bet you'd think it was about the covid. Sure they are different viruses but they behave exactly the same way! Catch covid? Flu-like symptoms. On deaths door? For the very same reasons as the flu.

So this is another pair of interesting fallacies, in this case misleading vividness and the old standby non sequitur. For the record, I understand influenza relatively well, and nothing you posted here surprises me in the least -- not sure why you'd think otherwise.

What difference does this mechanism make? Regular flu is scary, and we deal with it in our lives, therefore..?

Inadvertently, though, you've hit upon something else important: We still don't know the mechanism for our new virus. The mixed outcomes are striking -- everything from complete asymptomatic recovery to rapid system collapse after mild symptoms. The respiratory attack seems typical, but there is growing evidence for myocardial attack, along with strong hints of neurological involvement.

The uncertainties are formidable. This alone is reason enough to disregard any parallel between the two maladies.

Actually it seems like the probability has been plummeting. The data is suggesting it and so are the models.

Policy decisions will likely be made this week because things have gone so well. TX in particular will be among the first to start getting back to business.

What data? No one has successfully reopened yet.

What the leveling-off of death rates suggests is that mitigations are so far being effective. But only South Korea has come out the other side so far (unless by some miracle China isn't lying), and they're being very, very careful.

Korea also has a CFR approaching 2%, which is in family with the Spanish Flu.

Is it really "sweeping the globe"? We have 21k deaths in Italy now. How many deaths from the flu in Italy in a bad year? 25,000. We are still not there with the covid!

It's reached the Falkland Islands and apparently even gotten into the NRCC. I have no faith in the ability of the third world to contain it, since we can't. That's a sweep.

Then what is it being set on? The initial estimate was millions of deaths, this kicked off the policy-setting.

It's based on the potential. And this is the problem: We're doing everything we can to avoid that worst-case outcome, leading many to believe that it was never a real thing in the first place.

Hence the need to recognize and stamp out logical fallacy. We don't dare get this wrong. If the CFR of this thing is in fact in excess of 2%, then we are staring at the all time world record pandemic. If we get that plus problems developing immunity, then we are in Old Testament territory.

I discount both of those -- I expect some immunity will accrue, as most experts believe; and I expect the final CFR to be in the 0.5% range, maybe lower once science has a chance to catch up. But this is not kid stuff.

[sd_shooter]

This is more equivocation. You don't score how effective therapy is by the number of fatalities. At the very least, you should normalize by the number of infected or hospitalized. I could just as easily claim that my magic spells are highly effective against wombats, since there's never been one in my yard...

How is it scored then? I would think deaths would be central part of the tracking. Remember - death stats were used to scare everyone into submission for the covid-19 shutdown. Does the scoring method matter when comparing the final outcome? (Deaths or economic impact)

Antivirals and system support for the regular flu are estimated at about 90% effective in severe cases. We have nothing like that for COVID-19.

Looks like about 50% to me:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm

The CDC stat for 2020:
Back to you:

So this is another pair of interesting fallacies, in this case misleading vividness and the old standby non sequitur. For the record, I understand influenza relatively well, and nothing you posted here surprises me in the least -- not sure why you'd think otherwise.

I don't know you from a hole in the wall! We haven't had beers together, smoked stogies... no idea what you do or what you claim to know.

What difference does this mechanism make? Regular flu is scary, and we deal with it in our lives, therefore..?

Inadvertently, though, you've hit upon something else important: We still don't know the mechanism for our new virus. The mixed outcomes are striking -- everything from complete asymptomatic recovery to rapid system collapse after mild symptoms. The respiratory attack seems typical, but there is growing evidence for myocardial attack, along with strong hints of neurological involvement.

So we don't know about the new virus. See my comments on H1N1 toward the end of my post - did we know much about that either?

The uncertainties are formidable. This alone is reason enough to disregard any parallel between the two maladies.

Maybe for you. I'm fine living with an uncertainty that is on par with the regular flu.

What data? No one has successfully reopened yet.

The data that everyone posts daily. Like this:

https://ncov2019.live/data

What the leveling-off of death rates suggests is that mitigations are so far being effective.

In some cases yes. In other cases it's probably had little effect. Some places haven't even shut down.

But only South Korea has come out the other side so far (unless by some miracle China isn't lying), and they're being very, very careful.

Korea also has a CFR approaching 2%, which is in family with the Spanish Flu.

It's reached the Falkland Islands and apparently even gotten into the NRCC. I have no faith in the ability of the third world to contain it, since we can't. That's a sweep.

Can we contain the flu? Has it not reached every corner of the earth? (And again: are we stopping the world economy because of it?)

It's based on the potential. And this is the problem: We're doing everything we can to avoid that worst-case outcome, leading many to believe that it was never a real thing in the first place.

And what is that potential?

At first the potential 1-2 Million deaths. Then it was 200k deaths in the USA, then 80k, then 60k. What to you think the potential is today?

Based on both the data I posted above and the projections issued by the government I would judge the potential to be relatively small. Anything in line with the flu is not a big deal.

Hence the need to recognize and stamp out logical fallacy. We don't dare get this wrong. If the CFR of this thing is in fact in excess of 2%, then we are staring at the all time world record pandemic. If we get that plus problems developing immunity, then we are in Old Testament territory.

Logical fallacy is the problem to solve? Not boundless government control, endless debt, countless lies?

Are we immune to the flu?

I discount both of those -- I expect some immunity will accrue, as most experts believe; and I expect the final CFR to be in the 0.5% range, maybe lower once science has a chance to catch up. But this is not kid stuff.

Was H1N1 kid stuff? Why was the reaction to it to muted? CDC estimates that almost 600k people died world wide. What make covid-19 worth stopping the world but H1N1 did not?

[SanDiego619]

The original model was 2.2m deaths in the USA.

Later downgraded to 100,000 to 240,000

Now downgraded AGAIN to between 26,000 and 155,000

AND FOR THIS WE CREATE A DEPRESSION.

The whole virus is a frickin sham, they hyped it beyond belief to destroy the global economy for two reasons: they hate Trump and thought it might hurt him, and to create the opportunity for governments to expand.

[as_rocketman]

How is it scored then? I would think deaths would be central part of the tracking. Remember - death stats were used to scare everyone into submission for the covid-19 shutdown. Does the scoring method matter when comparing the final outcome? (Deaths or economic impact)

You work it out with controlled tests. This is exactly what Dr. Fauci has been trying to tell the world for the last two weeks now.

It has NOTHING to do with cumulative deaths early in an unprecedented outbreak.

This is why you are confused.

So we don't know about the new virus. See my comments on H1N1 toward the end of my post - did we know much about that either?

Actually yes -- the various flu strains were all identified and characterized in the 1940's. There are new mutations that pop up, sometimes a totally new strain, but for the most part there is an existing playbook on how to deal with them.

This new thing is quite extraordinary -- efficient transmission, long asymptomatic incubation period, long contagious window, and near-optimal fatality rate. It's sufficiently nasty that quite a few conspiracy theorists insist it has to be engineered, or even military in nature. They're wrong, but their belief is at least consistent with the particularly tricky nature of this virus. Its behavior is not flu-like, and there is no playbook except the basics.

Maybe for you. I'm fine living with an uncertainty that is on par with the regular flu.

As I've said before, everyone will have their own personal risk/reward calculation. Some will have sound reasons to accept a higher risk. Taken on the whole, however, this thing is a significant problem for us as a species.

The data that everyone posts daily. Like this:
https://ncov2019.live/data

You've missed my point. There is not a single society that has returned to normalcy, nor any who has attempted it yet. There will be second waves. Whether those are better, similar, or worse than the first remains to be seen. For this behavior, there is no data -- and there may well be a penalty for the society that goes first.

In some cases yes. In other cases it's probably had little effect. Some places haven't even shut down.

Of course. There are differences and geographical barriers do exist -- but mainly these reset the clock. In another thread, someone was trying to argue about two nations who didn't shut down and had a favorable outcome. Which was interesting, except that one of those nations actually did kinda shut down and its statistics are in question, while the other has since reversed itself.

Can we contain the flu? Has it not reached every corner of the earth? (And again: are we stopping the world economy because of it?)

Different situation. Flu is endemic. This thing is, sadly, well on its way to being there. Once that happens we lose some of our better options.

And what is that potential?

At first the potential 1-2 Million deaths. Then it was 200k deaths in the USA, then 80k, then 60k. What to you think the potential is today?

Based on both the data I posted above and the projections issued by the government I would judge the potential to be relatively small. Anything in line with the flu is not a big deal.

But the data and the projections you cite are invalid if you cease mitigations. Your claim is therefore baseless.

1-2 Megadeaths is still in the realm of plausibility if we just reopen the gates and rock'n'roll. That, of course, won't happen, but the actual number is strongly dependent on what mitigations remain in place and how well they work. Those are very hard to model accurately.

Logical fallacy is the problem to solve? Not boundless government control, endless debt, countless lies?

You cannot reason your way out of this on faulty grounds. Indeed, some people see conspiracies all over the place, and they have no way to know if what they see is even real. Yes, getting better informed and following proper reasoning and critical thinking is highly important at this juncture.

Are we immune to the flu?

Most everyone has some partial, inherited immunity to the flu. Answer is Yes.

Was H1N1 kid stuff? Why was the reaction to it to muted? CDC estimates that almost 600k people died world wide. What make covid-19 worth stopping the world but H1N1 did not?

Lower CFR, greater existing herd immunity, lower uncertainty, that's what. H1N1 was a Level 2 pandemic according to the scale. This thing is anywhere from a hot 3 to a 5, which is as high as the scale goes. As for bad performance in the past, that hardly excuses mishandling of this one.

But yes, objectively and scientifically this thing is VASTLY more dangerous. Even based on what we actually know about it. And we are still early in the game. The current "curve flattening" is basically the Battle of Britain -- we have a foothold, and survival, even decisive victory is now proven possible, but we do not yet even have the initiative.