• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jagdaddy said:
FWIW, life expectancy at birth is 83.0 years for Italy, 82.6 for France, 81.1 for Germany, and 78.6 for the U.S. If you change to life expectancy at 65 (remaining years for people who've made it that far), which is maybe a better metric for fighting disease, the numbers are 19.6/23.6 (men/women) for France, 19.2/22.4 for Italy, 18.1/21.2 for Germany, and 18.1/20.6 for the U.S. (not sure why they don't have a total for both men and women for the at 65 numbers). https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.htm#indicator-chart
Click to expand...

You know, when I went back to school to get my PhD in statistics I swore to myself I would never do statistically incorrect humor and I'll be damned if I haven't violated that sacred oath.

Thanks for calling me out on it. I shall be more vigilant henceforth.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone read the Imperial College report? Apparently this is the report that led to the more drastic actions we’ve seen this week.

Would be interested in the “pandemic simulation” details. Does it have the bona fides in modeling? How would we know?

One person’s summary starts here.



Sounds like it’s quick and very bad or slow and very inconvenient (and also bad).
 
Upvote 0
OHSportsFan said:
Anyone read the Imperial College report? Apparently this is the report that led to the more drastic actions we’ve seen this week.

Would be interested in the “pandemic simulation” details. Does it have the bona fides in modeling? How would we know?

One person’s summary starts here.



Sounds like it’s quick and very bad or slow and very inconvenient (and also bad).
Click to expand...


If I'm reading that right, from a quick skim, we're choosing to tank the economy to push the inevitable swamping of the health care system until later in the year?
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
If I'm reading that right, from a quick skim, we're choosing to tank the economy to push the inevitable swamping of the health care system until later in the year?
Click to expand...

I was going to make a joke about how LA opening up the jail cells was making Darwin’s job harder, but I refrained because i thought it in poor taste.

Then I read that thread and realized that perhaps it wasn’t in such bad taste.
 
Upvote 0
From the Imperial college report. Bold is mine.

We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased 16 March 2020 Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77482 Page 2 of 20 absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.
Click to expand...

If this report is driving policy then, our leaders have decided to set us on a course they knew to require 18 months, or so, of suppression from the beginning.

18 fucking months
 
Upvote 0
OHSportsFan said:
Anyone read the Imperial College report? Apparently this is the report that led to the more drastic actions we’ve seen this week.

Would be interested in the “pandemic simulation” details. Does it have the bona fides in modeling? How would we know?

One person’s summary starts here.



Sounds like it’s quick and very bad or slow and very inconvenient (and also bad).
Click to expand...


And these projected mortality rates do not include an uptick in mortality for non-COVID-19 patients. Fatalities from pneumonia, strokes, heart attacks, etc will all go up too when hospitals are at 125% capacity.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top