Author Topic: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?  (Read 675407 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3600 on: August 18, 2020, 01:00:50 PM »
you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3601 on: August 18, 2020, 02:20:00 PM »
My kids went back to school in person for the first time yesterday. Huge positive change in attitude and behavior last night. Instead of the constant complaining and criticism and whining that's developed from months of being isolated they were all in much better moods and nicer to one another. They're happy to be back in school and see friends and just get to interact with someone outside their immediate family for the first time in months.

The downside is we've cut off personal contact with my in-laws who had been able to see my wife and our kids since they'd all quarantined together and maintained a safe bubble. They're in their 70s and we all agreed not to take the risk until a vaccine is developed. Now that the kids are back in school we've gone shopping in person for the first time since March as well.

There's about 40 cases per day in the metro area of 800k, so about 5 per 100,000. Their school is pretty small with less than 100 students and faculty. The odds of one of those cases being someone in their school, let alone in their particular class, are a risk we're willing to take.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3602 on: August 18, 2020, 02:35:55 PM »
you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

NotJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Location: USA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3603 on: August 18, 2020, 02:38:52 PM »
Republicans are guilty of this too, but here are a couple examples from Democrats I found in 10 minutes of googling:

2:
Only allowing to go alcohol if and only if food is sold with it. This is happening in Massachusetts and New York.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/restaurants/2020/06/26/to-go-cocktails-might-save-mass/
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/07/17/bars-new-york-need-sell-food-serve-booze-what-know/5458017002/

I can't find any study that says alcohol increases risk of coronavirus if not paired with food.

It's not about being paired with food (which I think you know that no one is saying that it is) - it's just a convenient way to limit alcohol sales.  Which is a thing we've been doing since forever.

The NY article says it's to prevent close mingling (seems legit - we know close prolonged contact does increase your risk).  Also, this article is not related to to-go alcohol as mentioned in your comment.

In other places, it's likely related to local alcohol licensing and sales issues.  In some places, there are laws related to "restaurants" vs "bars" - in pre-pandemic times, I've been to places that would not serve alcohol unless food was purchased.  There are also limits on how much alcohol you can purchase in a day (again, pre-pandemic), and carryover of those kinds of rules to new to-go laws has nothing to do with the virus.

In my state, to-go alcohol is not a thing.  Alcohol is for on-premise consumption at bars or restaurants.  My state is temporarily allowing to-go and curbside alcohol sales because it's safer than on-site consumption, and helps sustain that part of the economy.  I'm in a red state, and even we now have a curfew for last call at bars.  I don't think Democrats have a monopoly on alcohol-related restrictions during the pandemic.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3604 on: August 18, 2020, 04:10:36 PM »
you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

NotJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Location: USA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3605 on: August 18, 2020, 04:38:40 PM »
Mass and NY weren't required to sell food with alcohol before. Why now? Is this helping reduce the spread of coronavirus?
Why open bars at all if the goal is to reduce close mingling? I'm not convinced that requiring food + alcohol instead of just alcohol will having a significant reduction in cases. Sorry, only the Massachusetts article is related to to go orders.

I don't know if it is working as intended, but theoretically, yes, it will help with the spread of coronavirus in NY because it will reduce the number of people going to bars and limit the time spent there.

Why open bars? Economics - they will make sales and make money.  Probably not as much money as if they were open unrestricted, but more than being closed.  They are trying to find a balance.  I have no idea if this particular rule is the best one they could have made.

The "we've been doing it since forever" was about nonsensical alcohol rules that limit sales (usually related to morality) that exist in various locations throughout the states, completely unrelated to the virus.

Again, this wasn't the law in Mass or NY before. Why make it now? Is it reducing the spread of coronavirus?

Because in Mass, they never sold to-go alcohol before (new situation, new rules).  Eating/drinking at home does reduce the spread of coronavirus - some people may be happier taking food home if they can get their favorite drinks from their favorite restaurant (and it increases revenue for the restaurant).  In NY, they never wanted to limit the time people spend at bars, now they do.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3606 on: August 18, 2020, 04:42:10 PM »
Here are some interesting stats provided by this really handy website which tracks Australian stats

https://covidlive.com.au/vic

My state has a particularly robust testing regime so I think these figures can be taken with fewer grains of salt than some American figures where only symptomatic cases are tested. We've been testing nearly everyone - close to 40% of the state's population.

People under 50:
- 11,979 cases
- 51 hospitalisations (0.4%)
- 4 deaths (0.03%)

People over 80:
- 1,471 cases
- 361 hospitalisations (24.5%)
- 258 deaths (17.5%)

Unfortunately there have been badly handled outbreaks in aged care which have resulted in many nursing homes having preventable deaths due to uncontrolled transmission.

Overall our state has had 17,231 cases and 351 deaths (2.0%).

LightTripper

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Location: London, UK
  • Rural Londoner. Lazy workaholic. Confused.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3607 on: August 18, 2020, 05:00:08 PM »
But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

As an economist I probably shouldn't draw your attention to this, but he actually didn't: it was founded much later (1968) "in memory of" Alfred Nobel.

On the broader point @GuitarStv  I will certainly concede that most economics is not a science (in the sense that it is generally impossible to conduct true scientific experiments on most subjects of economic interest).  However, it seems a bit harsh to write off all social science as "pseudo-science".  The fact that something is not a science doesn't mean that it is worthless, or simply astrology.  Economists do our best to make sensible inferences and policy recommendations based on data and, while it's imperfect, I still believe it's better than the alternative of leaving everything to some well-meaning politician's "gut feel" for what is the right thing to do for the economy....

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3608 on: August 18, 2020, 05:38:47 PM »
I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3609 on: August 18, 2020, 07:04:39 PM »
There is a difference between something having an impact (the point deborah was making) and something being demonstrated to have an impact (the point you were making). 
The context was a graph of case numbers. So we were talking about the second. Thankyou for your noncontribution to the discussion.
But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

He didn't. But in the 60s the Nobel foundation was being whittled down and they needed some cash, so a bank handed some over on the condition they'd establish a prize for economics. They didn't want to, so they compromised and called it the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is not a Nobel Prize, but is assessed by the same committee and awarded at the same ceremony and is for the same amount.

Which demonstrates how economics can argue about how no, it's not "printing money", it's quantitative easing, and... :)

Unfortunately there have been badly handled outbreaks in aged care which have resulted in many nursing homes having preventable deaths due to uncontrolled transmission.

The bull, properly-handled, is fairly harmless in the paddock. But the government let it get loose in the china shop. In response they have closed the paddock... and the rest of the farm for good measure. Meanwhile, the bull is still crashing around in the china shop largely unhindered.

But this is government. They send jobs overseas, then rebuke people for being unemployed. A man who by virtue of being mentally ill is ineligible to have a firearms license walks into a gun shop, and the owner illegally sells him a firearm, and the government responds by... no, not cracking down on gun shop owners, but changing the types of firearms people can buy. Government is guaranteed to ignore the real problems and get busy solving things that aren't a problem. "Is this a problem? No? Never mind, with enough work we can make it a problem!"

Years from now governments will be congratulating themselves for rebuilding the economy, getting people to get cancer screening, and mental health treatment. Government is a man who kicks you in the crotch then congratulates himself for giving you an ice pack.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3610 on: August 18, 2020, 07:59:10 PM »
Hospitalizations have come down in Texas, AZ, SoCal and Florida at this point. Not back to May or early June before the peaks hit, but about halfway there. Deaths are still high cresting, about 100-200 per day in each state. Those should trend down over the next month.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3611 on: August 18, 2020, 08:00:18 PM »
I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3613 on: August 18, 2020, 08:51:24 PM »
you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

Too funny. So we’re supposed to give special deference to the medical profession because they always agree, have consensus, and have no political overtones?

Sounds to me like we’re picking and choosing scientists based on whether or not we like their conclusions.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3614 on: August 18, 2020, 08:57:49 PM »


I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

The poster specifically said "about the virus," not the socioeconomic issues related to the virus. Neither of you have answered my question sufficiently.
Naah. I answered the question. Now we’re splitting hairs.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3615 on: August 18, 2020, 08:58:50 PM »
Two things of interest that came out of Victoria today:

Firstly, the police stupidly (and for no reason) issued a direction that people should stop driving to exercise. We are only allowed to exercise within a 5km radius anyway and it seems to me pointless to stop people from driving that small amount, particularly because people are driving to the shops to buy groceries, etc. It's just meddling and interference from the police, and the chief health officer had to bring it up and say he'll revise the guidelines.

We have police here who will harass people for not wearing a mask in public but they won't touch the religious celebrations and other mass family events that actually spread the disease.

Secondly, the government has said that case numbers have nearly fallen to the point where they will be able to publicly pinpoint clusters as they evolve, which is quite helpful for our understanding of where transmission takes place, and can also lead to sub-measures like locking down individual postcodes or suburbs. This I commend.

It's funny because the civil libertarians have been up in arms about the fact that the government (rightly) locked down several suburbs and housing commissions first, before locking down the rest of the state. But now I don't see any civil libertarians trying to vouch for the interests of those in, say, Mornington, where case numbers are extremely low but where they're locked down just like densely populated central Melbourne.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15963
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3616 on: August 18, 2020, 09:12:56 PM »
There is a difference between something having an impact (the point deborah was making) and something being demonstrated to have an impact (the point you were making). 
The context was a graph of case numbers. So we were talking about the second. Thankyou for your noncontribution to the discussion.
Actually, the graph was of the first. Case numbers. And the person who created the quoted illustration annotated it with the dates involved to show that the lockdown has made a difference. Thanks very much for that graph as it shows a lot.

You were talking about the R0 values rather than the number of cases. This defines how much of a difference the lockdown is making. With the graph, I can see why they’re not too happy.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2020, 09:18:05 PM by deborah »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3617 on: August 18, 2020, 09:25:40 PM »


I'm curious: which facts about the virus do you think the Democrats do not understand?

I'd prefer peer-reviewed sources from actual clinicians, epidemiologists, and/or biomed scientists rather than an opinion blog from the CIO of a financial company whose entire academic and professional career has been in the field of economics.

LOL. I think you answered your own question with your preference for clinicians, epidemiologists and biomed scientists. All of those scientists have an important role BUT you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists to figure out how to approach the issue. The proferred solution used by other countries of long term lockdowns haven’t worked in the US and aren’t going to. We can wish all we want that people will abide by them, but they won’t. So given a disobedient population that distrusts many experts and often detests their political leadership, how do you fight a pandemic? The medical field can’t really answer that question because a lot of the underlying issues are outside of their technical expertise.

The poster specifically said "about the virus," not the socioeconomic issues related to the virus. Neither of you have answered my question sufficiently.
Naah. I answered the question. Now we’re splitting hairs.

LOL, you didn't, but I'll let you have this one if it makes you feel better.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3618 on: August 18, 2020, 09:39:43 PM »
It's funny because the civil libertarians have been up in arms about the fact that the government (rightly) locked down several suburbs and housing commissions first, before locking down the rest of the state. But now I don't see any civil libertarians trying to vouch for the interests of those in, say, Mornington, where case numbers are extremely low but where they're locked down just like densely populated central Melbourne.
Well, firstly we must distinguish between people who use civil liberties arguments when it suits them, and actually civil libertarians.

For example, I know a lot of lefties, and they were rightly indignant when the right-wing ScoMo wanted to bring in some "Henry VIII" provisions, allowing him to declare states of emergency and issue decrees - er, "regulations made in co-ordination with appropriate Ministers of the Crown" - overruling legislation. However, now that the left-wing Andrews wants to be able to extend states of emergency indefinitely without consulting parliament, giving him the same powers, they are indifferent. Likewise, right-wingers were unconcerned about ScoMo's powers, but express worry about Andrews' powers.

So they used civil libertarian arguments for what was really political team point-scoring.

Then there are those of us who say that human rights, rule of law and democratic government matter regardless of which particular bunch of clowns are doing pratfalls out of the honking clown car of government. After all, even if you don't care that this particular wonderful person has the powers now, at some point in the future the other team will be in charge with those same powers.

Those of us who are genuine civil libertarians have been concerned since March 23rd this year when the first lockdown happened, and more concerned in May when the full state parliament last sat and a 354 page bill was forced through with the MPs having less than 48 hours to look over it. And we have been more and more concerned ever since.

Spud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Location: Southwest England, UK.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3619 on: August 19, 2020, 03:55:19 AM »
The US took just 24 days to go from 150,000 deaths to 175,000 deaths. What will the toll be on November 3, 2020? Will it even matter? Will anyone care by that point?

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7916
  • Age: 1
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3620 on: August 19, 2020, 04:45:40 AM »
I don't think anyone cares anymore. Soon this will be last years news.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3621 on: August 19, 2020, 06:20:41 AM »
I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3622 on: August 19, 2020, 07:02:18 AM »
I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

The examples were intended to show the difference of approach between science and pseudo-science.  One of the reasons that people are so often taken in by social 'science' is that they very dogmatically follow the trappings of science (scientific method, publishing results) but carefully leave out a few key parts.  That's why I picked the example I gave for psychology.  If you can't measurably show that something is a problem, then it's never going to be possible to find a cure/solution for that problem - no matter how many trappings of science you try to cloak yourself in.

I take a little affront at the accusation of cherry picking.  The DSM is still the bible for psychiatric treatment in North America.  None of the diagnosis were included based upon measurable criteria - because that would require defining a 'normal' human state (or range of states).  That's not cherry picking an example, that's underpinning of the whole field of study!  That's very different than any real science.  Again, pick any aspect of climate science and I'll be able to show the data that supports the theories, how the data can be reproduced reliably by anyone, and how the theories work together to create a unified understanding of climate change.  Climate science doesn't include things based upon political or popular conception.  If it did, we wouldn't have any climate crisis . . . it's a lot more profitable to ignore a problem of our own making (or pretend it doesn't exist) than try to get people to change consumption habits.

Again, this doesn't mean that the pseudo-sciences are without value.  I'd argue that there's tremendous value in the study of philosophy and literature without either being a science.  Many people draw comfort and make personal decisions from religion, psychology, and economics - these fields of study are not without value.

But by grasping for legitimacy they don't deserve, an awful lot of harm has been done in the name of the social sciences.  Again, sticking with psychology . . . look at the 'cures' for the undefined problem that it has produced over the ages.  Cures for homosexuality, trepanation, electro-shock therapy, dosing people with LSD, etc.  these treatments were devised with the trappings of science . . . but without first being able to define what 'normal' is there was no way of determining if they actually worked.  So eventually they've fallen out of favour . . . not because of measurable result but by popular opinion.

It's possible to show the same types of fundamental flaws with all social sciences . . . and doesn't require any cherry-picking.  These areas of study are rooted at a baseline in pseudo-science and should not be treated as or considered science.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3623 on: August 19, 2020, 07:13:40 AM »
I think there are some economists trying to do experiments.    Springer now has a journal on "Experimental Economics".

you also need to other scientists such as economists, sociologists, psychologists, and possibly anthropologists

Economists, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists - none of these are scientists (lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones in each case).  They are practitioners of pseudo-science.

But there's a Nobel prize in economics.   Surely old Alfred Nobel wouldn't have created a Nobel prize for a pseudo-science!

But all kidding aside, I'm pretty sure sociologists and psychologists run experiments with hypotheses and statistics, just like medical scientists.    Anthropologists, I don't know.    They mostly use science to uncover the past  don't they?

Running an experiment doesn't make something a science.

Based on my knowledge of Astrology I can hypothesize that Geminis are more emotionally sound than Leos.  Then I can go back through historical data of mental illness and birth dates to validate my hypothesis.  I can publish these astrology results to be peer reviewed by other astrologists.  That's following the scientific method to a T.  Is astrology therefore a science in your view?

I haven't heard anyone claiming astrology is a science.     What would you say if it turns out that Geminis are actually more emotionally sound than Leos with a high confidence level?    Would it be a statistical anomaly?    Or could there be some unknown factor related to being born in the last month of spring that improves your emotional health? 

I take the view that the soft sciences are valid as long as they are trying to systematically build and organize knowledge.    They're much more immature than the hard sciences, but they're trying.

A final thought - if you're going to exclude the "soft sciences" better add climate science to the list.    Even though they've achieved rough consensus, there's no way to do realistic climate experiments, and there are lots of political overtones.

Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

Systematically building and organizing knowledge of astrology can be done scientifically - but it's not and never will be science because whatever is discovered the fundamental theory of astrology (that planetary alignment is responsible for what people do) is not being tested.  It doesn't matter how well you follow the scientific method to discover a cure for gayness if you then change fundamental theories of the field of study based upon what happens to be in popular fashion rather than evidence.  That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.  But they have value in the way that philosophy, literature, or religion has value.  This can be very important, but is different from the way that real science helps us to understand the world in an unequivocal way.

So you cherry-picked two examples from two huge fields to show how one is "true science" and another is "pseudo-science" sounds pretty scientific to me. I'm convinced.

The examples were intended to show the difference of approach between science and pseudo-science.  One of the reasons that people are so often taken in by social 'science' is that they very dogmatically follow the trappings of science (scientific method, publishing results) but carefully leave out a few key parts.  That's why I picked the example I gave for psychology.  If you can't measurably show that something is a problem, then it's never going to be possible to find a cure/solution for that problem - no matter how many trappings of science you try to cloak yourself in.

I take a little affront at the accusation of cherry picking.  The DSM is still the bible for psychiatric treatment in North America.  None of the diagnosis were included based upon measurable criteria - because that would require defining a 'normal' human state (or range of states).  That's not cherry picking an example, that's underpinning of the whole field of study!  That's very different than any real science.  Again, pick any aspect of climate science and I'll be able to show the data that supports the theories, how the data can be reproduced reliably by anyone, and how the theories work together to create a unified understanding of climate change.  Climate science doesn't include things based upon political or popular conception.  If it did, we wouldn't have any climate crisis . . . it's a lot more profitable to ignore a problem of our own making (or pretend it doesn't exist) than try to get people to change consumption habits.

Again, this doesn't mean that the pseudo-sciences are without value.  I'd argue that there's tremendous value in the study of philosophy and literature without either being a science.  Many people draw comfort and make personal decisions from religion, psychology, and economics - these fields of study are not without value.

But by grasping for legitimacy they don't deserve, an awful lot of harm has been done in the name of the social sciences.  Again, sticking with psychology . . . look at the 'cures' for the undefined problem that it has produced over the ages.  Cures for homosexuality, trepanation, electro-shock therapy, dosing people with LSD, etc.  these treatments were devised with the trappings of science . . . but without first being able to define what 'normal' is there was no way of determining if they actually worked.  So eventually they've fallen out of favour . . . not because of measurable result but by popular opinion.

It's possible to show the same types of fundamental flaws with all social sciences . . . and doesn't require any cherry-picking.  These areas of study are rooted at a baseline in pseudo-science and should not be treated as or considered science.

Oh ok, so Clinical Psychology encompasses the entire field of psychology. That makes sense. That's good to know. I'll tell all my friends that have PhDs in psychology, but know nothing about Clinical that they didn't study psychology. Given your expertise what should I tell them their PhD is in?

frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Metro Detroit

LightTripper

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Location: London, UK
  • Rural Londoner. Lazy workaholic. Confused.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3625 on: August 19, 2020, 07:57:18 AM »
With psychology (to pick a soft 'science' example), homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the 1950s and was classified as such in the bible of American psychology - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (published by the American Psychological Association).  Methods to diagnose and treat this condition were included.  No evidence was gathered to prove that this was an illness . . . it was just politically and socially accepted that this was true.  In 1973 (after significant protesting and petitioning by gay rights groups) homosexuality was removed from the DSM.  Again, no evidence was gathered to prove that this was not an illness . . . but it was politically and socially less accepted that this was true, so psychologists changed their theories.  This is how all psychological conditions are still included in the DSM today.

I'm taking this even more off topic but lest we think the evils of conversion therapy are dead, there are still places in the US that will use electrical shocks to try to normalise autistic people and rectify their "disorders" as defined by the DSM (and many many other places, funded by insurance, that drill young autistic children for 40 hours a week with the same goal in mind). 

It doesn't mean that the DSM is rubbish in its entirety, or has no value (or that psychology is rubbish, or economics, or any other social science).  I still think there is value to trying to apply the scientific method to social (including economic) data, however - while recognising the challenges of doing that.  Dismissing it all as akin to astrology is too harsh.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3626 on: August 19, 2020, 08:13:27 AM »
Oh ok, so Clinical Psychology encompasses the entire field of psychology.

No, it doesn't, and this is a valid point.

There do exist a (very) few areas of psychology that represent real science.  Some of the neuropsychology research I've read for example is scientific . . . measuring chemical levels in the brain and using treatment to return these values to known measurable values.  Biospsychology tends to fall into this category as well.  I hope that some day the many completely unscientific areas of psychology are split off from the branch and as a whole psychology can become a real science.  Pretending that all (or even most) of psychology is scientific is battling against having this happen though.  Unfortunately the majority of the fields of study of psychology do not follow science today.  This includes:
Clinical psychology
Cognitive psychology
Developmental psychology
Evolutionary psychology
Forensic psychology
Health psychology
Occupational psychology
etc.


It doesn't mean that the DSM is rubbish in its entirety, or has no value (or that psychology is rubbish, or economics, or any other social science).  I still think there is value to trying to apply the scientific method to social (including economic) data, however - while recognising the challenges of doing that.  Dismissing it all as akin to astrology is too harsh.

This is fair.  As mentioned, I think there's value in the social 'sciences'.  My issue is simply applying the term 'science' to them . . . it provides an air of legitimacy that these areas of study don't deserve.

The comparison to astrology was meant to demonstrate that even a totally unscientific field can follow the scientific method, not to disparage the social 'sciences'.  FWIW, I'd argue that any of the social sciences is of more value that astrology.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3627 on: August 19, 2020, 08:28:26 AM »
Oh ok, so Clinical Psychology encompasses the entire field of psychology.

No, it doesn't, and this is a valid point.

There do exist a (very) few areas of psychology that represent real science.  Some of the neuropsychology research I've read for example is scientific . . . measuring chemical levels in the brain and using treatment to return these values to known measurable values.  Biospsychology tends to fall into this category as well.  I hope that some day the many completely unscientific areas of psychology are split off from the branch and as a whole psychology can become a real science.  Pretending that all (or even most) of psychology is scientific is battling against having this happen though.  Unfortunately the majority of the fields of study of psychology do not follow science today.  This includes:
Clinical psychology
Cognitive psychology
Developmental psychology
Evolutionary psychology
Forensic psychology
Health psychology
Occupational psychology
etc.


It doesn't mean that the DSM is rubbish in its entirety, or has no value (or that psychology is rubbish, or economics, or any other social science).  I still think there is value to trying to apply the scientific method to social (including economic) data, however - while recognising the challenges of doing that.  Dismissing it all as akin to astrology is too harsh.

This is fair.  As mentioned, I think there's value in the social 'sciences'.  My issue is simply applying the term 'science' to them . . . it provides an air of legitimacy that these areas of study don't deserve.

The comparison to astrology was meant to demonstrate that even a totally unscientific field can follow the scientific method, not to disparage the social 'sciences'.  FWIW, I'd argue that any of the social sciences is of more value that astrology.

You forgot Human Factors Psychology, experimental psychology, industrial psychology, and educational psychology. I guess ergonomics is pseudoscience good to know.

You seem to know a lot about all those sub-fields of psychology to confirm that all of the research that comes out of them is pseudoscience. It's like my friends on FB that barely graduated HS pretending to know everything about immunology right now.

You should open up a university and teach every subject yourself. You are clearly an expert in all fields of psychology and you think it's largely a worthless field, so I'd imagine your expertise in all of the fields of "real science" is far more comprehensive.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3628 on: August 19, 2020, 08:52:13 AM »
When you can't fight the idea, attack the person.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3629 on: August 19, 2020, 09:01:32 AM »
When you can't fight the idea, attack the person.

You're the one making the claim it's all pseudoscience. How do I fight an idea like that? You've already conceded that in fact not all sub-fields of psychology are pseudoscience, so you've already moved the goal-posts once. It makes it hard to fight moving goal posts.

 Reminds me of this quote.

Quote
"First you get your Bachelor's degree, and you think you know everything."
"Then, you get your Master's, and you realize you don't know anything."
"Then you get your Doctorate, and you find out that nobody knows anything."

I don't make claims about entire fields I know little about. I just find it funny when people make extreme generalizations about entire fields of study, entire industries, entire groups of people, etc.. I get that some are more PC to do than others, but the behaviors are strikingly similar.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 09:03:53 AM by mizzourah2006 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3630 on: August 19, 2020, 09:50:10 AM »
You are clearly an expert in all fields of psychology and you think it's largely a worthless field, so I'd imagine your expertise in all of the fields of "real science" is far more comprehensive.

I do not think psychology is largely a worthless field, and have never made that claim.  Quite the opposite:

That's not to say that psychology (or any social science) is without value.

Again, this doesn't mean that the pseudo-sciences are without value.

Many people draw comfort and make personal decisions from religion, psychology, and economics - these fields of study are not without value.

As mentioned, I think there's value in the social 'sciences'.  My issue is simply applying the term 'science' to them.

Indeed, the statement you made there appears to be rooted in the assumption that all fields of study that are not science are worthless (please correct me if this was not your intent) . . . and frankly, that's an odd point of view to hold given the statement here:

I don't make claims about entire fields I know little about.






You're the one making the claim it's all pseudoscience. How do I fight an idea like that? You've already conceded that in fact not all sub-fields of psychology are pseudoscience, so you've already moved the goal-posts once. It makes it hard to fight moving goal posts.

Is this really a case of moving the goal posts?

Take Thomas Aquinas . . . he did a lot of real science as part of his religious work.  Does the fact that he did  honest-to-God* science make religion scientific?  I can't think of a reasonable argument that it does.  Can you?  While huge swaths of a field of study are not scientific and while there exists no attempt to make them scientific . . . is it really fair to call the whole field science?  If you do believe that, can you explain the reasoning to me?


*heh


My intent was not to move goalposts, but to indicate agreement with you that there is indeed some small part of the field of psychology that is scientific.  There was a small part of the field of religious studies that was scientific too.  If in a couple hundred years the scientific parts of psychology eventually win out and completely eradicate the pseudo-science ones, then sure . . . we can call the field a scientific one.  But if (like religion) the overwhelming majority remains unscientific then I think it's unfair to do so.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3631 on: August 19, 2020, 10:16:14 AM »
All this psychology talk reminds me of an article I read years ago.  For the longest time, psychologists insisted that violent criminals were that way because they had low self esteem.

Then someone started looking at the data, and it turns out that it's the opposite.  The majority of violent criminals actually have very high self esteem.

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3632 on: August 19, 2020, 10:57:08 AM »
There's also the whole replication crisis, which is more pronounced in psychology than almost any other discipline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology Barely a third of psychological studies can be reproduced in other labs, and effect sizes are on average only half of what is originally reported upon replication.

HBFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3633 on: August 19, 2020, 12:12:02 PM »
The US took just 24 days to go from 150,000 deaths to 175,000 deaths. What will the toll be on November 3, 2020? Will it even matter? Will anyone care by that point?

This is true.  However, in my opinion the stat to really pay attention to is per capita.  For some reason there isn't much mention of the UK, which has a higher covid death rate per capita than the US.  I actually didn't realize the UK got hit so hard until I checked that stat.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 12:13:48 PM by HBFIRE »

habanero

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1145
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3634 on: August 19, 2020, 01:11:54 PM »
Its bit hard to compare countries as counting merhods differ. How they count is a large part of the Belgian numbers being very high (per capita). The UK just removed about 4000 deaths due to a change in how they count for example. The persons in question are most def dead but most likely not due to covid.

There was also some study out of Sweden arguing that in a lot of cases (albeit in a small sample) covid was at most a contributing factor and most likely not the main cause.

As a fun fact Norway has far less deaths that normal this year. There are few Covid-deaths and the measures have strongly limited the spread of other infections which normally would have finished off some of the high-risk patients (sick/elderly etc). A rather amusing example of this is that funeral agencies require emergency government support as there just aren't enough dead to make the business go around.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 01:59:47 PM by habanero »

Plina

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve
« Reply #3635 on: August 19, 2020, 01:35:47 PM »
Its bit hard to compare countries as counting merhods differ. How they count is a large part of the Belgian numbers being very high (per capital). The UK just removed about 4000 deaths due to a change in how they count for example. The persons in question are most def dead but most likely not due to covid.

There was also some study out of Sweden arguing that in a lot of cases (albeit in a small sample) covid was at most a contributing factor and most likely not the main


As long as you have had covid during the last months your death is getting registerd as caused by covid in Sweden. My parents former neighbour died in a nursing home sitting by the dinner table. She had been tested having covid and was therefore registered as a victim of covid. If she had a rally bad case she would probably not have died by the table.

My fathers uncle on the other hand was admitted to the hospital with covid and died there after a couple of days. He was 85 years and had a ton of other diagnoses and covid helped probably to speed the process.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3636 on: August 19, 2020, 03:14:04 PM »
Maybe I'm being unclear here.  This an example of the difference between science and pseudo-science:

With climatology, there is a significant amount of evidence that has been gathered that clearly shows the changes to our climate over time.  Increase in greenhouse gases (and the experiments that have been done showing the impact of these gases on planetary warming), measured satellite temperature changes over time, etc.  Mistakes and corrections have been made based upon new data, observations, and measurements showing which mathematical models are more correct.

<snip>

Sounds like something prone to overfitting, though doesn't it?   If only you could validate the models with an experiment!

Again, pick any aspect of climate science and I'll be able to show the data that supports the theories, how the data can be reproduced reliably by anyone, and how the theories work together to create a unified understanding of climate change.  Climate science doesn't include things based upon political or popular conception.  If it did, we wouldn't have any climate crisis . . . it's a lot more profitable to ignore a problem of our own making (or pretend it doesn't exist) than try to get people to change consumption habits.

If you're up for, I'll move this to another thread...    (I'd like to dig out more facts about climate science, I'm not a climate skeptic!)

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3637 on: August 19, 2020, 09:02:48 PM »
Quote
"Victoria's Deputy Chief Health officer says Melbourne's stage four lockdown will not ease until we see daily new cases in the "single digits or even low double digits"."

That's not going to happen before Christmas. We're in the 200s now. The deaths are 80+% in aged care.

alsoknownasDean

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3638 on: August 19, 2020, 10:44:31 PM »
Quote
"Victoria's Deputy Chief Health officer says Melbourne's stage four lockdown will not ease until we see daily new cases in the "single digits or even low double digits"."

That's not going to happen before Christmas. We're in the 200s now. The deaths are 80+% in aged care.

Whereas my prediction is that by the scheduled end of stage 4 on 13 September, we'll be seeing daily case numbers of around 50. How many of these will be community transmission and how many will be in health or aged care settings is anyone's guess. Although roughly half of the active cases are from health workers or in aged care settings.

The rate of new cases seems to be dropping by about 30% a week.

My prediction is that we'll go back to stage 3 at some point in September, and back to stage 2 in October. Whether this is staggered by area we'll find out.

Remember that two weeks ago we were in the 400s.

I just found out today that one of my neighbours had COVID. Fortunately he's recovered and returned to work, but still that hits close to home.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2020, 10:57:08 PM by alsoknownasDean »

kenmoremmm

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 717
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3639 on: August 19, 2020, 11:16:20 PM »
Quote
"Victoria's Deputy Chief Health officer says Melbourne's stage four lockdown will not ease until we see daily new cases in the "single digits or even low double digits"."

That's not going to happen before Christmas. We're in the 200s now. The deaths are 80+% in aged care.
precisely why lockdowns are not a tenable long term solution.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3640 on: August 20, 2020, 03:57:02 AM »
Whereas my prediction is that by the scheduled end of stage 4 on 13 September, we'll be seeing daily case numbers of around 50.
He said "single digits" or low tens would be what they want to see before lifting Stage 4. As for how long that'll take - at least till late October. Worldwide, the way down from peak to X cases takes about 1.7 times as long as it took to get up there, for example if it took 20 days to go from 10 to 100 daily cases, it'll take 20x 1.7 = 34 days to go from 100 to 10.
Let's look at the numbers.

https://www.covid19data.com.au

Last time we had a 7 day average of 10 cases a day was June 14-15. The peak was 516 on August 2nd, which is 48 days.

Multiplying that by 1.7 gets us 82 days, and 82 days from August 2nd takes us to October 22nd.

However I think it'll extend beyond there (the x1.7 is just an average, some do a bit less, many do much more), because the spread isn't in the general community, it's in healthcare, aged care, meatworks and warehousing, and the lockdowns don't affect them. They've introduced measures which should slow spread, like reduced staff for meatworks and warehousing, etc, but those measures are not as strong in effect as those in the general population, ie Stage 4.

Community transmission was never big, so the main reason for the slowing of cases has been quite simply it running out of victims. If you have 50 residents in an aged care home and 50 staff, and the staff have 100 household members, that cluster may start with 30 victims, but it only has another 170 to run through before it fizzles out - and a certain number of people never get infected.

Quote
My prediction is that we'll go back to stage 3 at some point in September, and back to stage 2 in October. Whether this is staggered by area we'll find out.
I believe that's optimistic. I note that the state of emergency has a legislated limit of 6 months, so unless Andrews can persuade parliament otherwise, it ends on midnight September 13/14th - and all measures with it (though they could keep hotel quarantine of new arrivals going after then). So he'll go back to parliament and try to force something through, which I'd expect he'd get.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2320
  • Location: England
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3641 on: August 20, 2020, 08:06:26 AM »
The US took just 24 days to go from 150,000 deaths to 175,000 deaths. What will the toll be on November 3, 2020? Will it even matter? Will anyone care by that point?

This is true.  However, in my opinion the stat to really pay attention to is per capita.  For some reason there isn't much mention of the UK, which has a higher covid death rate per capita than the US.  I actually didn't realize the UK got hit so hard until I checked that stat.

Hard to compare across countries due to different ways of counting deaths, as others have said. Probably the key difference is that the UK took a big hit upfront through government policies which (not by design) resulted in very high mortality rates in care homes early in the outbreak. The current rate of new deaths is fewer than 20 per day, compared with approaching 1500 per day in the US & Brazil.  Live UK Government data is here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ if you're interested.

LightTripper

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Location: London, UK
  • Rural Londoner. Lazy workaholic. Confused.
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3642 on: August 20, 2020, 10:10:29 AM »
They've just recalculated the UK deaths: I believe it was recording all deaths of anybody who had ever had a positive test (which was OK to start with but obviously got less reliable over time).  They are now doing tests within 28 days of a positive test.  Which will both overcount and undercount.  I'm hoping somebody's done the work to figure out how to balance out the overcounting and undercounting to roughly cancel out, but I guess it must depend on how prevalent Covid is (relative to the death rate from other causes).  Still, I suppose there is no perfect way to do these things, and the main thing is to be able to track trends consistently over time, so it will do. 

It does highlight the difficulty of comparing across countries: although I don't think there is any doubt that the UK has been hit hard.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3643 on: August 20, 2020, 10:36:41 AM »
The US took just 24 days to go from 150,000 deaths to 175,000 deaths. What will the toll be on November 3, 2020? Will it even matter? Will anyone care by that point?

This is true.  However, in my opinion the stat to really pay attention to is per capita.  For some reason there isn't much mention of the UK, which has a higher covid death rate per capita than the US.  I actually didn't realize the UK got hit so hard until I checked that stat.

Hard to compare across countries due to different ways of counting deaths, as others have said. Probably the key difference is that the UK took a big hit upfront through government policies which (not by design) resulted in very high mortality rates in care homes early in the outbreak. The current rate of new deaths is fewer than 20 per day, compared with approaching 1500 per day in the US & Brazil.  Live UK Government data is here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ if you're interested.

US average has been about 1,000 deaths per day for the past few weeks. Weekends are generally about 500 deaths while weekdays are 1,000 - 1,500. Brazil looks to be similar, lower weekend counts offset higher weekday counts with an average of about 1,000. India is also at about 1,000 per day, albeit out 1.35 billion vs 330 and 210 million in the US and Brazil.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3644 on: August 20, 2020, 11:17:18 AM »
Whereas my prediction is that by the scheduled end of stage 4 on 13 September, we'll be seeing daily case numbers of around 50.
He said "single digits" or low tens would be what they want to see before lifting Stage 4. As for how long that'll take - at least till late October. Worldwide, the way down from peak to X cases takes about 1.7 times as long as it took to get up there, for example if it took 20 days to go from 10 to 100 daily cases, it'll take 20x 1.7 = 34 days to go from 100 to 10.
Let's look at the numbers.

https://www.covid19data.com.au

Last time we had a 7 day average of 10 cases a day was June 14-15. The peak was 516 on August 2nd, which is 48 days.

Multiplying that by 1.7 gets us 82 days, and 82 days from August 2nd takes us to October 22nd.

However I think it'll extend beyond there (the x1.7 is just an average, some do a bit less, many do much more), because the spread isn't in the general community, it's in healthcare, aged care, meatworks and warehousing, and the lockdowns don't affect them. They've introduced measures which should slow spread, like reduced staff for meatworks and warehousing, etc, but those measures are not as strong in effect as those in the general population, ie Stage 4.

Community transmission was never big, so the main reason for the slowing of cases has been quite simply it running out of victims. If you have 50 residents in an aged care home and 50 staff, and the staff have 100 household members, that cluster may start with 30 victims, but it only has another 170 to run through before it fizzles out - and a certain number of people never get infected.

Quote
My prediction is that we'll go back to stage 3 at some point in September, and back to stage 2 in October. Whether this is staggered by area we'll find out.
I believe that's optimistic. I note that the state of emergency has a legislated limit of 6 months, so unless Andrews can persuade parliament otherwise, it ends on midnight September 13/14th - and all measures with it (though they could keep hotel quarantine of new arrivals going after then). So he'll go back to parliament and try to force something through, which I'd expect he'd get.

Yeah, I'm starting to get jaded with the lack of really granular data.

As you say, Kyle, it seems the main vectors of active cases have been -
1. Aged care homes
2. Hospitals
3. Abattoirs and other similar industries
4. Schools
5. High density housing

(1) and (2) above account for 3/8 of all current cases.

Large parts of the state are being held in stage 3 or stage 4 lockdown and, while some of the measures are eminently reasonable (prohibitions against extended family gatherings, prohibitions on large social functions), some of the measures are purely for optics or for the "theatre" of it all (a curfew on all movement, refusing to allow sole traders to enter their businesses, [till recently] refusing to let anyone drive for exercise).

And then there are stupid "allowed" things such as - allowing employees in high-risk industries to work across multiple sites (no reason to do this - they have pandemic leave - force them to use it); not following the NSW more invasive method of contact tracing till very late in the piece; not having proper checks of actual quarantined people (forced to lockdown due to a positive test) till late in the piece.

Our rhetoric in Victoria has been misguided: "We're all in this together." This has allowed actual high-risk people to move around with relative impunity, and it's forced heavy measures onto low-risk suburbs and communities.

No one seems to want to impose onerous lockdown measures on, say, casuals who work across multiple risky employers and who live in high-density housing. Because it's like, "Oh, they're already disenfranchised, or whatever. Let's not point a finger at them." But the truth is that it's those demographics who needed to be locked down first. That's not to say they're subjectively to blame, at all. I mean, what can a casual worker do? He needs to work. So we should have accepted that, instituted the pandemic leave much earlier on, stopped playing a game of morality/blame, and just shifted to an objective assessment of risk.

Hopefully for the next pandemic we can do that.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3645 on: August 20, 2020, 04:24:00 PM »
Our rhetoric in Victoria has been misguided: "We're all in this together." This has allowed actual high-risk people to move around with relative impunity, and it's forced heavy measures onto low-risk suburbs and communities.
In The Age today there's an article -

https://www.theage.com.au/national/let-the-virus-run-but-protect-the-vulnerable-easier-said-than-done-20200820-p55nk5.html

- where the guy basically outlines all the difficult things we'd have to do to let the virus run but protect the vulnerable, he then concludes it's too hard. But he fails to explain why it'd be worse than what we have now.

He's also wrong, of course. For example he talks of healthcare workers being kept away from their families. That's not necessary, because we already decided that outside the vulnerable we let it run - so their households get infected, some of them get sick, almost none of them die. As for their households infecting the healthcare workers and thus the patients, we have that risk already, and that's why healthcare workers have hygiene protocols. So all he's doing is describing unreasonable pointless restrictions to justify our current unreasonable pointless restrictions.

I understand why he's doing it. The medical community began 100% supportive of the lockdowns. In the sixth month they're starting to realise the cost is greater than the benefits, particularly of some measures. They can't say it openly, because medicine has Barries and Karens who report you to AHPRA and you get suspended. But they're talking amongst themselves and with their families. The Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University (not a medical doctor) says the costs are greater than the benefits.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/melbourne-university-head-says-restrictions-could-do-more-harm-than-virus-20200820-p55nl3.html

Dissent is growing. We are under house arrest 23 hours a day. We have curfews. People are fined for going for doughnuts, or taking their kids to the park. Public protests are banned. Parliament hasn't sat properly since May. People are dying from cancer, diabetes, dementia, suicide and unintentional overdoses. Marriages are breaking up. Children are growing memories of their parents depressed and angry. And a dozen elderly infirm are dying everyday anyway. So what's it all for?

Dissent is growing.

RetireAbroadAt35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3646 on: August 20, 2020, 05:19:57 PM »
And a dozen elderly infirm are dying everyday anyway. So what's it all for?
Because more people would die.  More people would get seriously ill.  More people would have long-term health impacts.  And it impacts more than the elderly or infirm.

I choose the middle path, in which all science-denying bums get run out of office and we focus our collective efforts on making testing fast and universal so we can lessen the restrictions while waiting for vaccines and therapies.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3647 on: August 20, 2020, 05:48:36 PM »
Because more people would die.
Foreign experience doesn't support that. Even Sweden's death rate was inflated by their denying medical care and actually killing the elderly infirm, many of whom otherwise would have lived.

400 Victorians a month are dying from the lockdown. I'm fine with 400 of us dying from the lockdown if it prevents 401 people from dying of covid. But it's not. We're getting the worst of both worlds.

Quote
More people would get seriously ill.  More people would have long-term health impacts.  And it impacts more than the elderly or infirm.
Yes. And the lockdown is doing these things, too.

Quote
I choose the middle path, in which all science-denying bums get run out of office and we focus our collective efforts on making testing fast and universal so we can lessen the restrictions while waiting for vaccines and therapies.
I don't think the Victorian government is capable of that. Here is the DHHS organisational chart, every person on that chart earns at least $200k, the top one $500k. Who's in charge? Not even they know. When you look at that chart, and realise too that that's just one department, the emergency management department and forestry and all the rest were involved too - I mean, the National Gallery of Victoria was part of the "mission team", wtf? - and there have been 5 State Controllers in as many months, you start to understand why security guards tasked with looking after those in quarantine were not only denied PPE, when they did their training if they ticked "yes" to "does mask-wearing prevent covid?" they were marked wrong. And of course, nobody can tell us who made that training module.

It is possible to test, treat and trace, and control outbreaks without widespread lockdowns. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have done it. What we need to do is go to those countries and offer them a big wad of cash to come in and run things, and just do exactly what they tell us. But the anglosphere don't like learning from foreign countries, especially those with different-coloured skin. And so we clusterfuck on.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3648 on: August 20, 2020, 07:44:43 PM »
The numbers today in Victoria are a relief

I can't see the lockdown being extended for longer than 13 September. The chorus of voices is starting to build. There might even be cautious easing before the official date.

The economic damage and psychological damage of lockdown is mounting and once daily cases drop a little further there will be no justification for it continuing.

RetireAbroadAt35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: How long can we wait while flattening the curve?
« Reply #3649 on: August 20, 2020, 08:53:54 PM »
Foreign experience doesn't support that.
I'm not going to play armchair epidemiologist when it comes to "data".

Quote
I don't think the Victorian government is capable of that.
Well, it's not an either or, it's a question of how effective you can get.  And one thing I can say for sure, the Victorian government is beating the pants off my government.  You could have it much worse.

Quote
It is possible to test, treat and trace, and control outbreaks without widespread lockdowns. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have done it.
I imagine we don't need to hire them.  It's not about expertise.  We just need the will, and a lot more testing.