32
   

Coronavirus

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 11:47 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
In short the question isn't how much national/collective pride Germans or any other collective-identifying individuals should feel, but rather what they have to continue doing to prevent future infections/deaths from COVID19 and/or some other virus or mutation of it.
In short: nothing of that was part of or mentioned in the quoted Science research article.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 12:04 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
In short the question isn't how much national/collective pride Germans or any other collective-identifying individuals should feel, but rather what they have to continue doing to prevent future infections/deaths from COVID19 and/or some other virus or mutation of it.
In short: nothing of that was part of or mentioned in the quoted Science research article.

It sounded like the effectiveness of differing national responses were being compared.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 12:07 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
It sounded like the effectiveness of differing national responses were being compared.
You should tell the authors that "Focusing on COVID-19 spread in Germany" sounds like comparing the effectiveness of differing national responses .
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 12:22 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
It sounded like the effectiveness of differing national responses were being compared.
You should tell the authors that "Focusing on COVID-19 spread in Germany" sounds like comparing the effectiveness of differing national responses .

I read your post and posted a response. Is there a problem with that?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 12:30 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
I read your post and posted a response. Is there a problem with that?
No, of course not.

So you conclude from ...
Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions wrote:
By combining an established epidemiological model with Bayesian inference, we analyze the time dependence of the effective growth rate of new infections. Focusing on COVID-19 spread in Germany, we detect change points in the effective growth rate that correlate well with the times of publicly announced interventions. Thereby, we can quantify the effect of interventions, and we can incorporate the corresponding change points into forecasts of future scenarios and case numbers. Our code is freely available and can be readily adapted to any country or region.

... that the authors of that research feel much national/collective pride or that any other collective-identifying individuals could feel that?
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2020 12:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
I read your post and posted a response. Is there a problem with that?
No, of course not.

So you conclude from ...
Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions wrote:
By combining an established epidemiological model with Bayesian inference, we analyze the time dependence of the effective growth rate of new infections. Focusing on COVID-19 spread in Germany, we detect change points in the effective growth rate that correlate well with the times of publicly announced interventions. Thereby, we can quantify the effect of interventions, and we can incorporate the corresponding change points into forecasts of future scenarios and case numbers. Our code is freely available and can be readily adapted to any country or region.

... that the authors of that research feel much national/collective pride or that any other collective-identifying individuals could feel that?

I think analyses like this give a false sense of oversight because the curve rate is taken as a sufficient summary of all the underlying qualitative interactional aspects of how viral contamination actually happens at the empirical level.

When people only have numbers and math to analyze, they sometimes focus all their analytical attention on the numbers and math and forget to think about the world of interactions outside the math through which viruses are actually spread (or not).

Reducing populations to simple numerical comparisons does feed into collective-identity rivalries. It's like when sports competitions allow audiences to just focus on which country's team gets the most points instead of really paying attention to all the other aspects of the sport.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2020 07:57 am
Quote:
Coronavirus Vaccine Trial by Moderna Shows Promising Early Results

The first coronavirus vaccine to be tested in people appears to be safe and able to stimulate an immune response
against the virus, its manufacturer, Moderna announced on Monday.

The findings are based on results from the first eight people who each received two doses of the vaccine, starting
in March.

Those people, healthy volunteers, made antibodies that were then tested in human cells in the lab, and were able
to stop the virus from replicating — the key requirement for an effective vaccine. The levels of those so-called
neutralizing antibodies matched the levels found in patients who had recovered after contracting the virus in the
community.

The company has said that it is proceeding on an accelerated timetable, with the second phase involving 600 people
to begin soon, and a third phase to begin in July involving thousands of healthy people. The Food and Drug
Administration gave Moderna the go-ahead for the second phase earlier this month.

If those trials go well, a vaccine could become available for widespread use by the end of this year or early 2021,
Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, said in an interview. How many doses might be ready is not clear,
but Dr. Zaks said, “We’re doing our best to make it as many millions as possible.”

There is no proven treatment or vaccine against the coronavirus at this time. Dozens of companies in the United States,
Europe and China are racing to produce vaccines, using different methods. Some use the same technology as Moderna,
which involves a segment of genetic material from the virus called messenger RNA, or mRNA.
(nyt)
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2020 11:19 am
If you were told that 3.18% of the people who normally drive around in their cars between March and today would suffer a fatal accident, would you be driving around?

That's the percentage of deaths of those who contract COVID19 in Travis county, Tx.

maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2020 10:13 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

If you were told that 3.18% of the people who normally drive around in their cars between March and today would suffer a fatal accident, would you be driving around?

That's the percentage of deaths of those who contract COVID19 in Travis county, Tx.


That's not a good comparison. Driving around isn't analogous to contracting Covid-19 (no one chooses to contract the virus).

If 3.18% of people who got in an accident died.... I might risk it (depending on my chance of getting in an accident). That is a much more logical comparison.
Below viewing threshold (view)
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 06:56 am
@livinglava,
(I upthumbed Lava's post, even though I disagree with him).

There are thousands of people who die in automobile accidents every year. I couldn't find the percentage of accidents that are fatal, but it could be 3%. But even if it is not, when you drive (or swim, or take an airplane, or put salt on your food)... you are participating in "risky behavior".

We are all gamblers.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 08:07 am
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

If you were told that 3.18% of the people who normally drive around in their cars between March and today would suffer a fatal accident, would you be driving around?

That's the percentage of deaths of those who contract COVID19 in Travis county, Tx.



I wonder if you have a higher population of older people? The death rate on average is in the low 1% which is in line with the percentage chance of dying in a car accident. But it unfortunately hits those as they age at an increasing percentage.

Unfortunately it hits the elderly significantly harder than anyone else per CDC website:

"8 out of 10 deaths reported in the U.S. have been in adults 65 years old and older. See below for estimated percent of adults with confirmed COVID-19 reported in the U.S:"

Adults 65 – 84 Adults 85+
Hospitalizations 31-59% 31-70%
Admission to intensive care 11-31% 6-29%
Deaths 4-11% 10-27%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html

So if you live in an aging population - you would expect to see a higher percentage of deaths than the national average. Although I am sure that there are other factors as well - but (economic term) ceteris paribus - that is what you would expect.
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 08:32 am
@Linkat,
Deaths per 1 million people per year from auto accidents in the US are around 100. At a 1% fatality rate, Covid 19 would be 10,000 or 100x the risk from driving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 08:52 am
@engineer,
Sorry I meant to say "The death rate on average is in the low 1% ... for those younger than 60 years old." Left the age part out when I wrote it.

The covid overall rate is yes much higher. When you pull out those over 60 it decreases to the low 1%.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 09:20 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

chai2 wrote:

If you were told that 3.18% of the people who normally drive around in their cars between March and today would suffer a fatal accident, would you be driving around?

That's the percentage of deaths of those who contract COVID19 in Travis county, Tx.



I wonder if you have a higher population of older people? The death rate on average is in the low 1% which is in line with the percentage chance of dying in a car accident. But it unfortunately hits those as they age at an increasing percentage.

Unfortunately it hits the elderly significantly harder than anyone else per CDC website:

"8 out of 10 deaths reported in the U.S. have been in adults 65 years old and older. See below for estimated percent of adults with confirmed COVID-19 reported in the U.S:"

Adults 65 – 84 Adults 85+
Hospitalizations 31-59% 31-70%
Admission to intensive care 11-31% 6-29%
Deaths 4-11% 10-27%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html

So if you live in an aging population - you would expect to see a higher percentage of deaths than the national average. Although I am sure that there are other factors as well - but (economic term) ceteris paribus - that is what you would expect.

Whenever you're studying statistics, it is extremely important to remain aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

Keep in mind that there are real sequences of causes and effects that result in car crashes, COVID19 infection/death, or whatever.

Age may correlate in a certain way with car crashes or COVID19, but age in and of itself doesn't cause anything. It is that age correlates with other factors that cause infection to be more serious, such as disease; or in the case of car crashes, adolescent cognitive behavior.
Linkat
 
  6  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 09:22 am
@livinglava,
I have a masters degree in economics - I know just a tad about statistics. so no need to school me.
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 10:18 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
Do you think that an MA or PhD, post doc, tenure, or whatever prevents people from false reasoning that subconsciously assumes correlation to imply causation?


Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you? Numbers do not lie. They are what they are. Statistics aren't polls. Just because Dr Judy confused her own statistics for creative fiction, she got caught, does not mean you get to throw shade. Shame on you.
livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2020 10:23 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
Do you think that an MA or PhD, post doc, tenure, or whatever prevents people from false reasoning that subconsciously assumes correlation to imply causation?


Seriously. What the hell is wrong with you? Numbers do not lie. They are what they are. Statistics aren't polls. Just because Dr Judy confused her own statistics for creative fiction, she got caught, does not mean you get to throw shade. Shame on you.

Correlation is not causation.

Do you understand that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Coronavirus
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 01:17:47