If you have children would you send them back to school?

No, we don't disagree that the virus spreads; I gather the experts say its very infectious. and I would have no cause to think otherwise.....

However, the virus IS spreading and will continue to spread, so the relevant question is "if schools reopen, what is the incremental spread?" Of course we don't know the answer and practically it seems we will have to watch other countries and some of the states and learn from their experience

But adults are interacting all over the country right now and the infections are going to continue.

To your second point, we need to make a distinction between case mortality rate and overall mortality rate. I define case mortality rate as : given you have been tested to have the disease, what are the odds you will die. This number is way less than 2% ; I think the CDC recently said it was somewhere between .3 and .6 %.....In my state I believe it is around 8-9 per 1000, last time I looked. But this varies greatly by age...It's probably way more than 2% for the at risk population and certainly way less for the rest of the population.

Now the overall mortality rate is going to be less because the denominator is going to include people who haven't yet been infected or have been asymptomatic. I don't think anyone knows how big that number is, but some estimates are pretty big.

But going back to the case mortality rate (and their health), I am NOT saying throw them off on their own. Policy decisions have to be made and whatever policy is decided upon, people will suffer.

It seems most of the people in this thread are in the camp of shutting down the schools (judging by the number of thumbs down I get -lol_) and that's fine.

I'm saying the infection is spreading, will continue to spread I'm saying that closing the schools won't increase the spread materially from what it otherwise will be ( an assertion, not a fact) and will do more harm than good to this country.

I'm saying as a policy decision, we should help the at-risk people (e.g. don't let people with Covid visit nursing homes; give them access to necessities without having them put themselves at risk, and so on) while we wait for the hoped for vaccine.

Just saying the virus is going to spread and we need to stop it, falls a little short because I think the cat is already out of the bag.

So I don't really think there is anything wrong with the analysis, but I can see how people can feel that they don't want to be the person that causes someone in the high risk population to get sick .

As stated, I don't believe shutting down the schools is the answer Grandpa is going to have to make some behavioral decisions, with society's help, to minimize his risk. He should be doing that now, anyway

Btw, my 97-98-99% figures were just a rough number of how many people get more than mildly sick (not how many people will die) assuming the asymptomatic population is 3 times the size of the symptomatic population. Sorry if that was not clear

What happens if the Epidemiologists and Public Health Experts look at the best available data and say that reopening schools will greatly increase the spread of the virus in the general society?

Would this change your way of thinking?

I believe strongly that policy should be informed by science, and by science I mean the best understanding of experts given the latest data.

I would rethink my position, yes but not sure I would come to a different conclusion as long as the morbidity and mortality rates remain low.

Let me ask you this. Don't you believe school age children are already interacting with each other today all over the country ? Either organized activities or just hanging out ?

For the record, I am a 65 year old (healthy), but my age puts me in a slightly higher risk category.

Experts aren't always right when dealing with the unknown. Science isn't majority of experts say such and such In the end, 'experts' are looking at data and hopefully making their best guess. Some would say I am an expert at forecasting health insurance results and I am not bragging. Take 15 expert actuaries however, give them the same data and they will come up with different answers....

There are covid experts all over the place giving out their opinions and actually supporting their opinions by showing their data and assumptions

The important question is what is the best way to stop the spread of covid-19? If it is a fact that shutting down schools will significantly slow down the spread of the virus, then the rest of the reasoning doesn't matter.

A scientific consensus is when the experts say "We have looked at the data carefully, and we are confident that this is the case". A scientific consensus is rarely an complete majority (especially with crackpots on the internet) but it means that almost all of the people who really they are talking about are in agreement.

I believe we should make policy decisions based on scientific consensus. Sure, scientific consensus isn't a guarantee... but it is the best way forward given the best information. Usually a scientific consensus is right. The alternative is making policy decisions based on political bias where we all fall on the side of believing what is expedient according to our personal beliefs.

I prefer going with science, and that means listening to the scientific consensus being reached by the experts.

I am curious about this. Is there really that much uncertainty among actuaries?

I have heard the Actuaries say that "Men under 25 are significantly more likely to get in car accidents than the average driver". I would suspect that this would be "settled" science, and that there would be a consensus among actuaries on this question.

If this is the consensus among actuarial experts, I would trust it. This is a field I know almost nothing about. I haven't looked at the data myself, nor do I know the issues in measuring such a thing. That is why we have experts... they can explain it to me if I really want to know. But if the experts reach a consensus, I am going to trust it over my own biases.

if 15 actuaries were given a set of data and asked to make projections, they would come up with different answers. Some might say medical trend is going to be 4% over the next 5 years , others might say 5%, or introduce a graded scale. Then there are lapse rates, investment rates, morbidity rates that vary by plans, new sales assumptions, drug costs, utilization trends and a host of other assumptions....Now then, take those same actuaries, put them in a room and a consensus might be reached , or a range of results- pessimistic, optimistic, and expected.....But the 'problem' is, no one knows the future. So, it's science, it's math, its formulas, its reasoning and it's a guess. It's probably a good guess. Possibly it's the best guess. And it could be wrong. The 16th actuaries projection that wasn't in the room, now his could turn out to be right.


I am a health actuary, so don't dabble much with casualty , pension or life insurance. although I have been educated somewhat on these topics.

You are correct that the accident rate for men under 25 is probably a pretty hard number in total and you would think it's a settled science...But is there a difference by vehicle - Mustang vs. Chevy ? Is there a difference by geographic area? Is there a difference between whether they had had a ticket or multiple tickets or a prior accidents or no accidents and on and on. It's not as settled as one might think and different actuaries will come up with different answers in evaluating a group of 100 men under 25.

Now throw in a wrench, like , say, we are going to raise the speed limit 10 mph on every road in the country......sure, assumptions can be made, consensus can be reached , the experts can come out and say " Here is our scientific result", and its another guess.

With Covid, there is so much unknown. I'll assume people are trying their best to develop models , but the experts have been wrong in the past and they are still trying to figure out their assumptions. So I take a lot of stuff that is presented with a huge grain of salt because I know how forecasts are performed

Forgive me, but I am skeptical that what you are saying is true.

If you take 15 random people and ask them to make projections about some medical trend... you are truly going to get fifteen guesses. That is because random people aren't experts. They have no knowledge and no skill in making any type of projection... even if they have the data, they won't know what to do with it.

If you take 15 skilled actuaries, the projections might vary, but they won't be random. The skilled actuaries will be much more in sync than the random people. They might have some disagreements... but there will be things that are clear from the data that any skilled expert will see and agree on even if amateurs don't see it.

If your expertise means nothing and random people can do your job with the same results, then why do they pay you guys so much?

I'm not saying the results are random...I am saying actuaries will have different views of what are reasonable future assumptions...A group of actuaries might agree that medical trend will range from 3-5%, and that provider discounts range from 30-45% ofphysician costs, and they might say that lapse rates are expected to be between 10 and 15%, and on and on...All the assumptions are reasonable (not random guesses), and in isolation, there might be a bell shaped curve around a mean of the sample set of individual actuarial results. And then when you put them all of them in a room to hash it out, they might come out with one projection and yes, it might be the best expert projection that anyone on the planet could make......but its still a guess....and it could be wrong

lol...because most of the time, our guesses are pretty good !

Exactly. And I would trust the "guesses" of your group of experts over my own guesses.

The same with epidemiologists.

I apologize. I didn't know that anything I wrote needed to be in direct response to something you said. I'll try to keep that in mind.

roger, how could you not know that writing anything extraneous was strictly prohibited.

The very idea of you expressing your own thoughts. Really roger.

I SAID I would be more careful.

.
At least with the stuff that I deal with, we have some basis and history and foundation, if you will.

We don't know enough about Covid to say anything with any kind of reasonable certainty. The world is still in a massive learning curve.

But let's say I completely cede your point. that epidemiologists have a complete handle on how to control the spread....And let's say it's to do a lockdown.

In their narrow-minded focus, they are ignoring all the negative, medical, mental, emotional, , suicidal costs , the economic costs, the inflationary costs the trillions of dollars is going to create, the increases in cancer costs and deaths because physicals are skipped, the destruction of businesses, the increase in crime rate....I'll stop now; you get my point.


None of this is material in your view ? Stop the spread no matter what ? My solution is help the high risk population as much as is reasonable where the spread of Covid really needs to stopped.

I guess maybe that is where we diverge ? I say say stop the spread among high risk people and you say stop the spread period.

The leaders need to take the advice from the experts - not just epidemiologists, but also their financial analysts, the sociologists, the mental health experts, the hospitals, the business community, and so on and make the decision based on all the expertise - not just one group of experts who say "here's how to stop the spread". .

Having said that, I do think the toothpaste is out of the tube, and don't think it can be squeezed back in .

You have an expertise... and you understand why your expertise helps you make informed decisions that normal people couldn't make.

I think you are minimizing the expertise of epidemiologists. Science has been studying and dealing with infectious disease for thousands of years. There is quite a bit of "basic and history and foundation, if you will".

I get your point about needed to worry about the costs of lockdown. I think epidemiologists get this point too.

Still... when it comes to the facts about the epidemic, you should listen to the epidemiologists.

You make good points. The only question in mind is where do we draw the line between social, economic and other issues involved in preventing the spread, and the actual direct results of the disease. I have no idea where that line should be drawn.

About thing Trump has ever said on the subject is that the cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.

No, apparently you don't understand my position.

well, as a numbers guy, I am hoping I don't get Covid and if I do, that I don't die. Because this whole year is interesting to watch ....I am in Michigan now and for the next 6 weeks and it is so much different than Oklahoma...kind of annoying, actually, that I cant go to a restaurant and must wear a mask....I don't know which approach will be better - Michigan's or Hawaii's or the free state of Oklahoma ....

this reminds me of one of the oddest projections I have made. Shortly after 9-11, the Board of Directors of the company I was working on asked to know what would be the impact on the company's surplus if a 'dirty' bomb was set off in downtown Cleveland where we had a huge number of insured members.....That was the assignment and , being the 'expert'. I gave them the answer.

(just telling a side story)

In recent history, the area where the health actuaries were just all over the board was with the introduction of Obama care on the individual health market place. The elimination of sex rating; not allowing us to age-rate properly, 100% coverage on preventative benefits, no underwriting, subsidies were things that had no historical data on which to just add some inflation and say "here are the rates".......We had to make assumptions as to how many of the healthy young people would drop out of the market, how many people who didn't have insurance due to pre-existing conditions would jump in and how much would they cost, what was going to be the age/sex distribution and so on.....And all of the experts got it wrong and the government had to pay billions of dollars to the insurance companies (part of the provisions of Obamacare) because of the anti-selection. I actually actually doubled our individual insurance rates that first year and that was insufficient.

just another side story

I guess the point of the two side stories is experts can come up with answers to problems, but in some cases there is huge uncertainty...and maybe that is the position epidemiologists are finding themselves in right now....making their best guesses but they really don't know