The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Coronavirus Cases and Deaths Per Capita, by State
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Confirmed coronavirus cases per 100,000 people as of March 31, 2020:

State Cases/100k
New York 389.7
New Jersey 210.5
Louisiana 112.7
Massachusetts 95.2
Michigan 76.4
Connecticut 72.1
District of Columbia 70.1
Washington 68.1
Illinois 47.0
Rhode Island 46.1
Colorado 45.6
Vermont 41.0
Pennsylvania 38.8
Nevada 36.1
Georgia 35.3
Delaware 32.8
Indiana 32.1
Mississippi 31.5
Florida 29.5
Maryland 27.5
Utah 25.1
Tennessee 24.0
Wisconsin 23.2
Idaho 23.2
New Hampshire 23.1
Maine 22.5
Missouri 21.6
Alabama 19.4
California 19.1
Ohio 18.8
South Carolina 18.0
Arizona 17.8
Montana 17.3
Arkansas 16.8
Wyoming 16.4
Alaska 16.3
North Dakota 16.0
Iowa 15.8
Kansas 14.9
Virginia 14.6
North Carolina 14.6
Hawaii 14.4
Oregon 14.4
Oklahoma 14.3
New Mexico 13.4
South Dakota 12.2
Texas 11.3
Minnesota 11.2
Kentucky 10.7
Nebraska 9.6
West Virginia 8.1

Coronavirus-attributed deaths per one million people:

State Deaths/mil
Louisiana 51.6
New Jersey 30.1
Washington 29.3
New York 28.3
Michigan 26.4
Vermont 19.2
District of Columbia 12.8
Georgia 10.2
Connecticut 10.1
Colorado 8.9
Massachusetts 8.8
Illinois 8.3
Rhode Island 7.6
Indiana 7.4
Delaware 7.2
Mississippi 6.7
Nevada 5.8
Oklahoma 5.8
Pennsylvania 5.4
Ohio 4.7
North Dakota 3.9
California 3.9
Idaho 3.9
Oregon 3.8
Wisconsin 3.8
Montana 3.7
Maine 3.7
Florida 3.6
South Carolina 3.5
Kansas 3.4
Arizona 3.3
Virginia 3.2
Maryland 3.0
Alaska 2.7
Kentucky 2.7
Alabama 2.7
Arkansas 2.3
Missouri 2.3
Iowa 2.2
New Hampshire 2.2
Minnesota 2.1
New Mexico 1.9
Tennessee 1.9
Texas 1.7
Nebraska 1.6
Utah 1.2
South Dakota 1.1
North Carolina 0.9
West Virginia 0.6
Hawaii 0.0
Wyoming 0.0

There aren’t any obvious demographic patterns that jump out to me. The correlation between confirmed cases and deaths is 0.86–not perfect, but close enough to assume states are largely on the same page when it comes to tracking the virus at this point.

The Northeast is getting crushed while the central corridor is getting off pretty easily. My mental map had California under siege, but that’s because media reporting has states ordered by absolute cases and deaths rather than by the rates of each (hence the impetus for creating the maps and tables). California is fairing relatively well.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Disease, Health, The states 
Hide 75 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. There aren’t any obvious demographic patterns that jump out to me.

    That is because you didn’t filter for the most important pattern : age.

    I wonder how, if there are 100,000+ American deaths, that may affect the election.

    On one hand, elderly people voted for Trump 53-45 in 2016.

    On the other hand, most deaths are in densely populated regions, and few in the two key states that Trump won by surprise, and had better win again : PA and MI.

    LA is a red state so the high rate of deaths will not affect the status of the state in the Electoral College.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    Filtering by (rough) age doesn't do much - using some data from the Population Reference Bureau on the proportion of people aged 65+ by state.

    The raw correlations between that and
    • cases/100k by state is -o.03
    • deaths/million by state is -o.05.

    That's not really surprising, because the actual number of cases (and deaths) as a proportion of the total population in each age group is basically a rounding error.

    When you're dealing with such minuscule proportions of the total population things tend to bounce around and correlations go to shit unless there's direct causative relationship (e.g., between cases and deaths).
  2. State by state log-scale death curves, 03/31/2020.

    • Thanks: Haruto Rat
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Thank you for providing these death curves. They are more useful than plots of just the numbers of all cases identified.

    It will be interesting to see what the curves do when they are in the blue zone. Death rates are partly a function of the fraction of the population that is vulnerable. That fraction varies, even from year-to-year between strong and weak flu seasons.

    The number of deaths caused by a virus = The "strength" of its harmful effects on the human body x The number of vulnerable, "weak" people whose bodies it can get into. When Corona-chan starts running out of 85-year-old diabetic chain-smokers, maybe these curves will begin to flatten like previous flu death curves. The question is, how close to the blue zone will that be?

  3. Interactive Graph of States COVID-19 Per Capita History as of 3/30/2020

    You can hover over any intersection of a vertical hash mark (day) and trend line to get the trendline’s State and number for that date.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The link doesn't work, but I want it to!
    , @James Bowery
    One of these should work (the first indirectly):

    https://twitter.com/jabowery/status/1244785369830359041

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRLN0S_l0zg8B7CAyy7toYfyJSOKTW1-QJf8brrQkEze6Gkfy0BlKtaRjTrqpxquoKyRGbKlZGz4Qyn/pubchart?oid=944741573&format=interactive

  4. @Intelligent Dasein
    State by state log-scale death curves, 03/31/2020.

    https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/corona-deaths-states-20200331.png?w=713&ssl=1

    Thank you for providing these death curves. They are more useful than plots of just the numbers of all cases identified.

    It will be interesting to see what the curves do when they are in the blue zone. Death rates are partly a function of the fraction of the population that is vulnerable. That fraction varies, even from year-to-year between strong and weak flu seasons.

    The number of deaths caused by a virus = The “strength” of its harmful effects on the human body x The number of vulnerable, “weak” people whose bodies it can get into. When Corona-chan starts running out of 85-year-old diabetic chain-smokers, maybe these curves will begin to flatten like previous flu death curves. The question is, how close to the blue zone will that be?

  5. Just ran the Pearson’s r correlation between the cases per 100,00 per state (I left out DC)and the population density of the state. I got 0.47. Of course, there’s nothing surprising about there being a correlation. It’s just interesting to know what it is currently. A few days ago it was 0.38.

    This value indicates that population density is an important factor, and the fact that it isn’t larger indicated that there are other important variables.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Even sparsely populated states have dense centers here and there, which contain most of the state's people. So, population density is probably an important factor equally in every state.
  6. The correlation between deaths per 100,000 and population density is 0.68.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  7. California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.

    Policy matters more than demographics in this instance. While there are no doubt some demographic differences in CFR after getting sick, the virus is more than willing to spread to anyone.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Disagree. Policy has not proven itself to be of any great impact.

    If you were to consult a chart of deaths per ten million across several countries, you would see what I mean.

    Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.

    The reality is that our system here in the states has been so weakened by years of materialist philosophy and Judaized economics that we can't bear the strain of a flu pandemic that Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine compare to previous pandemics (1957 and 1968) that were handled with ease.

    In America, there are three reasons for the efforts to "lock down" everyone:

    The first is that we don't have particularly good hospital capacity (New York has closed 16 in 10 years).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Capitalism and socialism are both stupid ways to manage health care. Health care was and ought to be run by the likes of Catholic religious orders, not (((business people))) or government bureaucrats (perhaps I should say (((bureaucrats))) )

    The second reason is that our moronic trade policy of unrequited free trade has left us with a shortage of masks. Luckily many Americans have enough starch left in them to make their own.

    Those two reasons are due to incompetence and greed.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    , @Ron Unz

    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.
     
    Exactly! If you'd plotted things out a month ago, California---and especially Silicon Valley---would have been a national epicenter of the outbreak, and many of those other states would have had no apparent cases at all. So the complete turnaround in California is very remarkable.

    Frankly, at that time I was very pessimistic that anything would be done before the tsunami of disease overwhelmed this state. Fortunately, some local public health officials took determined action:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

    As of right now, I'm hoping that California escapes with only a few thousands deaths among 40M residents. Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    With an exponential process, just a few days can make an enormous difference...
  8. @Michael S
    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.

    Policy matters more than demographics in this instance. While there are no doubt some demographic differences in CFR after getting sick, the virus is more than willing to spread to anyone.

    Disagree. Policy has not proven itself to be of any great impact.

    If you were to consult a chart of deaths per ten million across several countries, you would see what I mean.

    Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.

    The reality is that our system here in the states has been so weakened by years of materialist philosophy and Judaized economics that we can’t bear the strain of a flu pandemic that Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine compare to previous pandemics (1957 and 1968) that were handled with ease.

    In America, there are three reasons for the efforts to “lock down” everyone:

    The first is that we don’t have particularly good hospital capacity (New York has closed 16 in 10 years).

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Capitalism and socialism are both stupid ways to manage health care. Health care was and ought to be run by the likes of Catholic religious orders, not (((business people))) or government bureaucrats (perhaps I should say (((bureaucrats))) )

    The second reason is that our moronic trade policy of unrequited free trade has left us with a shortage of masks. Luckily many Americans have enough starch left in them to make their own.

    Those two reasons are due to incompetence and greed.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    "Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times."

    South Korea has had a far better trajectory than the others and the difference seems to be mask wearing. I don't like the idea of everyone in America wearing masks, but the data seems to point to that as being the most effective thing.
    , @obwandiyag
    I am reminded of power outages. Back in the 60s, when we had a power outage, the power came back on within 24 hours. Now, because the power company has laid off and not replaced its linemen, they have to import linemen from Kentucky, which takes time, and then not enough, which slows the work down. Thus, week-long or longer power outages.
    , @Rosie

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.
     
    Not only that, but I suspect even the globalists are going tobe able to spin this to their advantage:

    We're all human.
    We all bleed red.
    Humanity v. Nature.
    Global solutions for global problems, etc.

  9. Colorado is doing oddly bad for their inland isolation (this virus clearly thrives in coastal areas near large bodies of water).

    In an Anatoly Karlin thread, I observed that some of the hardest hit areas globally are often areas with a lot of radon. And indeed, Colorado has very high levels of radon:

    However there’s also a source of ionizing radiation unique to Colorado, which has been the negligence of the nuclear industry there. The most well documented disaster has been the Rocky Flats incident and subsequent “cleanup”. Although plutonium levels are considered safe there I imagine the effect of higher than average radon + plutonium + cosmic rays from the altitude are taxing lungs in what is otherwise a very isolated region.

    • Replies: @Omegabooks
    Your radon map indicates far west Texas ought to have a number of corona virus cases. In fact, other than El Paso County, far west Texas has NO CORONA VIRUS CASES...maybe the fact that it is rural remote has something to do with it. The Permian Basin area has some, one death, and that's it for west Texas.
    , @anon
    Add altitude, which increases radiation exposure, the urbanites in the Denver area, along with the stress of being around groid crime and the typical libturd city dweller and we can draw some additional variables for a model. Of course age is important, as is the level of humidity. Basically we look at all the risk factors for pneumonia and go from there
  10. Thanks for doing this, AE.

    This data has really frustrated me. I really expected to see a much sharper contour in terms of temperature and (equivalent indoor) humidity. I believe there is one, with New York hit far harder than Florida and Washington hit much harder than California.

    Louisiana is an outlier, but it wasn’t hot and humid during Mardi Gras when a million drunks humped together in the street on winter nights in February. There seems to be a long lag from exposure to death.

    People will look at the current data and think it isn’t seasonal but if you look at the global data, things are very climate-dependent. Mexico and points south are hardly impacted. The elite of Brazil were affected when they traveled to temperate countries but then there was little community spread in Brazil.

    The tropical countries south of China are hardly impacted. Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia should have been utterly hammered.

    I believe a sharper climatic contour will come in a few weeks but for the time being it is hard to see in the US. Globally the climatic contours are sharp.

    • Replies: @anon
    Mexico and points south are hardly impacted.

    So far. That could be changing. There are a lot of obese diabetics in Mexico. Look at the color map in this article, that dark spot is Mexico City. Air quality there has been poor for decades.

    https://www.mexicanist.com/l/coronavirus/

    Vietnam,

    It's a police state where quarantine is easy to enforce. There is no dissent.

    https://www.dw.com/en/how-vietnam-is-winning-its-war-on-coronavirus/a-52929967

    Globally the climatic contours are sharp.

    So far. It's still early in many places. Time will tell us a lot.

  11. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Disagree. Policy has not proven itself to be of any great impact.

    If you were to consult a chart of deaths per ten million across several countries, you would see what I mean.

    Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.

    The reality is that our system here in the states has been so weakened by years of materialist philosophy and Judaized economics that we can't bear the strain of a flu pandemic that Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine compare to previous pandemics (1957 and 1968) that were handled with ease.

    In America, there are three reasons for the efforts to "lock down" everyone:

    The first is that we don't have particularly good hospital capacity (New York has closed 16 in 10 years).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Capitalism and socialism are both stupid ways to manage health care. Health care was and ought to be run by the likes of Catholic religious orders, not (((business people))) or government bureaucrats (perhaps I should say (((bureaucrats))) )

    The second reason is that our moronic trade policy of unrequited free trade has left us with a shortage of masks. Luckily many Americans have enough starch left in them to make their own.

    Those two reasons are due to incompetence and greed.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    “Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.”

    South Korea has had a far better trajectory than the others and the difference seems to be mask wearing. I don’t like the idea of everyone in America wearing masks, but the data seems to point to that as being the most effective thing.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Well, if your argument is that the best "policy measures" include wearing masks, then I agree.

    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/corona-deaths20200330.png?w=718&ssl=1

    But there are a lot of people claiming "lock downs" are necessary, and they're wrong. This is most especially because a total lock down is impossible, anyway.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    That seems to be Japan's secret, too.
    , @billyg
    I believe South Korea was better prepared primarily due to their constant vigilance of their northern neighbors. South Korea was already equipped for biological warfare with stockpiles of PPE and equipment to combat it. That is also why they have been so far ahead with testing and contact tracing. It could be masks too, but they have a well developed system of testing, discovering hotspots, tracing sources and contacts and quelling outbreaks. Those tactics are basics for biological warfare as well. When we get our testing ramped up and can get proactive contact tracing we will see similar results.
    Bill
    Formerly military with experience in this specific area...
  12. @Cardano
    Just ran the Pearson's r correlation between the cases per 100,00 per state (I left out DC)and the population density of the state. I got 0.47. Of course, there's nothing surprising about there being a correlation. It's just interesting to know what it is currently. A few days ago it was 0.38.

    This value indicates that population density is an important factor, and the fact that it isn't larger indicated that there are other important variables.

    Even sparsely populated states have dense centers here and there, which contain most of the state’s people. So, population density is probably an important factor equally in every state.

  13. Almost Heaven, West Virginia

  14. @DanHessinMD
    "Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times."

    South Korea has had a far better trajectory than the others and the difference seems to be mask wearing. I don't like the idea of everyone in America wearing masks, but the data seems to point to that as being the most effective thing.

    Well, if your argument is that the best “policy measures” include wearing masks, then I agree.

    But there are a lot of people claiming “lock downs” are necessary, and they’re wrong. This is most especially because a total lock down is impossible, anyway.

  15. anon[106] • Disclaimer says:
    @DanHessinMD
    Thanks for doing this, AE.

    This data has really frustrated me. I really expected to see a much sharper contour in terms of temperature and (equivalent indoor) humidity. I believe there is one, with New York hit far harder than Florida and Washington hit much harder than California.

    Louisiana is an outlier, but it wasn't hot and humid during Mardi Gras when a million drunks humped together in the street on winter nights in February. There seems to be a long lag from exposure to death.

    People will look at the current data and think it isn't seasonal but if you look at the global data, things are very climate-dependent. Mexico and points south are hardly impacted. The elite of Brazil were affected when they traveled to temperate countries but then there was little community spread in Brazil.

    The tropical countries south of China are hardly impacted. Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia should have been utterly hammered.

    I believe a sharper climatic contour will come in a few weeks but for the time being it is hard to see in the US. Globally the climatic contours are sharp.

    Mexico and points south are hardly impacted.

    So far. That could be changing. There are a lot of obese diabetics in Mexico. Look at the color map in this article, that dark spot is Mexico City. Air quality there has been poor for decades.

    https://www.mexicanist.com/l/coronavirus/

    Vietnam,

    It’s a police state where quarantine is easy to enforce. There is no dissent.

    https://www.dw.com/en/how-vietnam-is-winning-its-war-on-coronavirus/a-52929967

    Globally the climatic contours are sharp.

    So far. It’s still early in many places. Time will tell us a lot.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Australia should be the place to watch in the next couple of months.
  16. a county map would be more useful, and would show that big cities run by Democrats are the centers of infection. of course that is a secondary effect in a lot of ways, since as America 1.0 recedes in the rear view mirror, certain big cities become dominated by Democrat politics, increasingly decade by decade.

    i already did some calculations by median age per city, and wondered if young, vibrant cities would be less affected than cities with lots of old europeans. or at least, the young vibrants are clearly less affected than boomers simply due to age.

    this virus finds people over 60 who have some other disorder already, and kills them. that’s pretty much 95% of who is going to die. so it can only kill so many people. and, we know who to quarantine, and why we don’t need a society wide lockdown, which is total nonsense.

    roads, highways, suburbs, and car culture are protecting most of the US, versus subways and buses in metro cities, and the passenger rail system in europe.

    it makes no sense that MLB is not playing right now in empty stadiums. athletes in their 20s and 30s standing 30 feet away from each other, how dangerous, not. test all the players and staff, yank the guys who test positive, get on with playing the games. lots of people will stay inside to watch the games, instead of going outside and spreading the virus. the money is in the television contracts, the owners will be losing all ticket sales and concessions of unplayed games anyway, so start playing.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    this virus finds people over 60 who have some other disorder already, and kills them. that’s pretty much 95% of who is going to die.
     
    This is exactly what I was getting at in my comment a few minutes ago.

    It looks like it's hitting over-60s if you do a "<60, 60+" split, but that's because '60+' includes 70+.

    70+ is where all the statistically relevant action is.

    The impact on 60-70 year olds is 65% less than for 70+ - and that's without considering existing conditions.

    Even 70+ deaths are overwhelmingly RBIs.

    It also pays to be careful about what is being called a chronic existing condition or risk. NYT and other retards have included 'obesity' as a cofactor, which is retarded because it ignores the fact that a lot of people are obese (and there's a massive overlap between obesity and diabetes: 'obesity' as a cofactor makes sense as a poor proxy for metabolic syndrome - i.e., pancreatic and other endocrine malfunction).

    Likewise, in general it's highly likely that the association between hypertension and covid19 death is spurious (since elevated BP is a symptom of most important chronic disease, not a cause of anything by itself).

    I would say that, of course - because I'm a 'hypertension -> CVD denier' (as I was a 'fat->CVD' denier, a 'salt->CVD' denier, a 'cholesterol->CVD' denier, a 'LDL -> CVD' denier, a 'statins for 50yo men -> ↓ mortality' denier, a 'BMI>25 -> ↑ mortality' denier... and so on). I have a history of correctly denying things (KEK).

  17. If you Google “New York loud talkers“ you get a great many hits. There seems to exist loud talking. Perhaps the loudness is due to the effervescent personality of New Yorkers. Perhaps it is because New York is a noisy city, and so it is necessary to talk loudly to be heard. In any case, I think that New Yorkers tend to have a forceful spritz when they speak. Or argue.

  18. Unfortunately, now rural America will be getting Covid-19 good and hard.

    https://www.grandforksherald.com/lifestyle/health/5021975-Rural-county-on-Minnesotas-southern-border-a-coronavirus-hot-spot

    “We may have had travel-related cases months ago,” says Tim Langer, public health sanitarian with Martin County Human Services. He estimates the county had five cases related to travel — “just to various places across the U.S.” — and that some of the travel-related cases were couples.

    “It is absolutely concerning to us. Our main goal has been to get the word out from day one. . . . We’re kind of at a loss as to why this is happening.”

    Pressed for a theory, Langer pointed to early skepticism within a certain cable news outlet.

    “My personal opinion is there are some folks listening to some media outlets that were not taking this seriously. That can be a factor too. It’s hard to prove that. I don’t want to get political. But there were outlets saying it’s a hoax, it’s no worse than a cold, and those are things people listen to. Our advice has been to look to credible sources of information like the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). ”

    • Replies: @anon
    Tiny Crow quotes Tim Langer, a public health official from Minnesota:

    Our advice has been to look to credible sources of information like the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). ”
     
    The credible sources of information at the CDC had this to say on Feb. 12:

    CDC does not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general public. This virus is not spreading in the community.
     
    Here's the link:
    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html

    They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?

    We'll see how the pandemic plays out. Some rural areas may be only lightly affected by this, due to early shutdown of travel from China and general reduction of intra US travel. Or not. Too soon to tell.

    Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy; international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19. Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.
  19. Lots of Hasidic Jews in NJ and NY jumps out at me.

  20. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Disagree. Policy has not proven itself to be of any great impact.

    If you were to consult a chart of deaths per ten million across several countries, you would see what I mean.

    Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.

    The reality is that our system here in the states has been so weakened by years of materialist philosophy and Judaized economics that we can't bear the strain of a flu pandemic that Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine compare to previous pandemics (1957 and 1968) that were handled with ease.

    In America, there are three reasons for the efforts to "lock down" everyone:

    The first is that we don't have particularly good hospital capacity (New York has closed 16 in 10 years).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Capitalism and socialism are both stupid ways to manage health care. Health care was and ought to be run by the likes of Catholic religious orders, not (((business people))) or government bureaucrats (perhaps I should say (((bureaucrats))) )

    The second reason is that our moronic trade policy of unrequited free trade has left us with a shortage of masks. Luckily many Americans have enough starch left in them to make their own.

    Those two reasons are due to incompetence and greed.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    I am reminded of power outages. Back in the 60s, when we had a power outage, the power came back on within 24 hours. Now, because the power company has laid off and not replaced its linemen, they have to import linemen from Kentucky, which takes time, and then not enough, which slows the work down. Thus, week-long or longer power outages.

  21. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Unfortunately, now rural America will be getting Covid-19 good and hard.

    https://www.grandforksherald.com/lifestyle/health/5021975-Rural-county-on-Minnesotas-southern-border-a-coronavirus-hot-spot


    "We may have had travel-related cases months ago," says Tim Langer, public health sanitarian with Martin County Human Services. He estimates the county had five cases related to travel — "just to various places across the U.S." — and that some of the travel-related cases were couples.

    "It is absolutely concerning to us. Our main goal has been to get the word out from day one. . . . We're kind of at a loss as to why this is happening."

    Pressed for a theory, Langer pointed to early skepticism within a certain cable news outlet.

    "My personal opinion is there are some folks listening to some media outlets that were not taking this seriously. That can be a factor too. It's hard to prove that. I don't want to get political. But there were outlets saying it's a hoax, it's no worse than a cold, and those are things people listen to. Our advice has been to look to credible sources of information like the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). "

     

    Tiny Crow quotes Tim Langer, a public health official from Minnesota:

    Our advice has been to look to credible sources of information like the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). ”

    The credible sources of information at the CDC had this to say on Feb. 12:

    CDC does not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general public. This virus is not spreading in the community.

    Here’s the link:
    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html

    They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?

    We’ll see how the pandemic plays out. Some rural areas may be only lightly affected by this, due to early shutdown of travel from China and general reduction of intra US travel. Or not. Too soon to tell.

    Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy; international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19. Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?"

    The CDC is credible. You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    "Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19."

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    "Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example."

    You mean vacationers from that nation.
  22. link

    Do you really believe all of those “confirmed cases” were diagnosed via the RT-PCR test for COVID-19?

  23. @Thomm

    There aren’t any obvious demographic patterns that jump out to me.
     
    That is because you didn't filter for the most important pattern : age.

    I wonder how, if there are 100,000+ American deaths, that may affect the election.

    On one hand, elderly people voted for Trump 53-45 in 2016.

    On the other hand, most deaths are in densely populated regions, and few in the two key states that Trump won by surprise, and had better win again : PA and MI.

    LA is a red state so the high rate of deaths will not affect the status of the state in the Electoral College.

    Filtering by (rough) age doesn’t do much – using some data from the Population Reference Bureau on the proportion of people aged 65+ by state.

    The raw correlations between that and
    • cases/100k by state is -o.03
    • deaths/million by state is -o.05.

    That’s not really surprising, because the actual number of cases (and deaths) as a proportion of the total population in each age group is basically a rounding error.

    When you’re dealing with such minuscule proportions of the total population things tend to bounce around and correlations go to shit unless there’s direct causative relationship (e.g., between cases and deaths).

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Since Americans tend to retire to the suburbs/countryside, the increased vulnerability due to age is probably being offset by decreased vulnerability due to lower population density where most aged folk live.

    Cases where this retirement pattern doesn't apply, e.g., Hasidic neighborhoods and urban ghettos, are what we now call "hotspots".
  24. To put the covid19 death rates per million in context: consider the highest – Louisiana, at 51/million.

    5.1/100,000 is a drop in the bucket given that the state’s raw (annual) death rate is 977/100,000 (CDC, Deaths: Final Data for 2017 table 12).

    If Louisiana’s 239 died-with covid deaths were distributed in line with the state’s age distribution (i.e., mostly under 60), it would be a moderately important contribution to the state’s mortality profile – but it’s not distributed in line with the age distribution.

    Of Louisiana’s 239 deaths, 208 are in the over-60s (and 177 are in the over-70s).

    Over-60s have a nation-wide death rate that starts at ~1000/100k (for 60-65 year olds) and goes up to ~13,500/100k for over 85s (CDC, Table 2).

    The Louisiana government doesn’t give additional ‘granularity’ in deaths in the over-70s (Louisiana Data Panel for covid19), so we have to use ’70+’ mortality for that group, which means we have to calculate its underlying death rate.

    Pulling the data from behind the Population Pyramid on WorldPopulationReview – Louisiana gives a total LA population over 60 of 888,500 (and 366,600 of those are over 70).

    Doing some basic arithmetic we can get some numbers for 60-70 year olds: deaths = 31; population = 521,900.

    So we can get age-cohort covid death rates:
    60-70: 31/521,900 or 0.59/100k (or 0.0059%)
    60+: 208/888500 or 23.4/100k (0r 0.0234%)
    70+: 177/366600 or 48.2/100k (or 0.0482%)

    (Note that the populations are not “[Age bracket], with significant chronic health conditions“).

    Age-weighting the Louisiana population by the national deaths rates by age and gender, gives an estimate of the expected (annual) death rate as follows:

    60-70: 1240/100k (1.24%/yr)
    60+: 2150/100k (2.15%/yr)
    70s+ 3429/100k (3.43%/yr)

    So covd19 deaths are – so far, in the worst-affected place in the US by population – a squootch under 1.1% of the total expected over-60 deaths for the year: we’re 3 months into this ‘crisis of existential proportions‘.

    covid19 deaths as a proportion of total expected annual deaths:
    60-70: 0.47%
    60+: 1.09%
    70s+: 1.41%

    What this little exercise is meant to show, is that people need to be careful when they see numbers ascribed to a group that includes a natural partition into subgroups, where one subgroup is almost entirely unaffected.

    In this case, the number for “60+” is highly misleading in calculating expected impact on a cohort of 60-70 year olds.

    70+ has a natural partition between ‘chronically ill’ and ‘not’, for which data is not readily available, but even taken as a whole, the additional risk to a 70+ person in the most-affected state in the US is ridiculously small.

    The excess risk will be non-negligible for 70+ males with underlying conditions, and near-zero for almost everyone else. 60-70 females with no chronic underlying medical conditions, f’rinstance.

    Doing this for all 50 states is a trivial exercise; I’ll do it sometime today. We can’t do tables up in this bitch, so once it’s done I’ll have to post a picture of a table.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks very much.
    , @Kratoklastes

    70+ has a natural partition between ‘chronically ill’ and ‘not’, for which data is not readily available
     
    I should add - the absence of that extra granularity is not the fault of the US in particular.

    Globally, everyone who is generating available data, is doing so in fairly 'HelloWorld' ways that limit the ability of data-dredgers to make useful inferences.

    There was a really good Chinese-CDC study on comorbidities a week or so ago, for example - big sample, fairly high-quality data and what-not. Vital Surveillances: The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) — China, 2020, which gives the breakdown of 44,672 confirmed cases, with a raw all-age-groups CFR of 2.3%.

    The most obvious pattern in the deaths from that paper, is that the death rate plummets if the patient is under 60 years of age, regardless of comorbidities.

    Age Band CFR
    <40 <0.2
    40-49 0.4
    50-59 1.3
    60-69 3.6
    70-79 8.0
    80+ 14.8

    By Comorbidity:
    Disease CFR
    CVD 10.5
    Diabetes 7.3
    CRD 6.3
    Hypertension 6.0
    Cancer 5.6
    None 0.9

    (CRD: Chronic respiratory disease - which includes things like cystic fibrosis, COPD etc)

    There's enough data to back-solve for the 'raw' sample-wide CFR for those with comorbidities.

    As noted in a footnote to Table 1, they only had 20,812 patients (and 504 deaths) with detailed comorbidity data (including the ability to definitively claim no comorbidities).

    Of those,
    • 15,536 patients (and 133 deaths) had zero comorbidities - so a CFR of 0.9%.
    • 5,276 patients (and 371 deaths) had 1+ comorbidities - so a CFR of 7.0%.

    One thing that's worrisome: the numbers for the individual 'comorbid condition' line items in the table, sums to exactly 5,276.

    This indicates that there were zero joint comorbidities, which is hugely unlikely. They must have selected a 'primary' comorbidity where two or more are found together (so 'CVD+Hypertension' = CVD).

    For patients with 'missing' comorbidity data, CFR was 2.6 - which means that the those for which comorbidity data was absent, appear very-slightly more mortal than the ones for which comorbidity data was available (but well within statistical tolerances).

    All of that's really useful, so far as it goes, but it's still not possible to estimate, say, the excess morbidity-related risk for someone aged 30, because this data doesn't distribute comorbidities and comorbidity-related deaths by age group.

    That's what I mean by 'HelloWorld' data-science.

    Given the original data it's literally a crosstab (or in SQL, a different 'GROUP BY') - but they didn't do it (I'm trying to find out whether it's been done elsewhere).

    The lack of age-comorbidity data really ruins the data as a useful thing for calculating excess risk by age bands.

    To see why this matters:

    There were 873 'covid19+CVD', of whom 92 died.

    So 10.5% of people with "covid19 + CVD" died. Unconditionally, an arbitrarily-selected individual with CVD has about a 10.5% chance of dying, which is ~4x the population estimate.

    That's useful, but what if a person without CVD has other known characteristics (e.g., they're under 40)?

    Is their risk if they contract covid19 0.2%? Or does it turn out that most - or even all - mortality risk in the under-40 age group come from people with chronic illness?

    Since there's no information about the age distribution of the 92 'covid19+CVD' subsample (and deaths), the Chinese CDC paper can't help.

    This is more important that trying to work out if the conditional risk for a 30 year old is 0.2% or 0; it might make a huge difference deeper into the age roster.

    If cormobidities were significantly present in deaths of those aged 50-70, the conditional risk of dying might be near zero for an under 70 unless they have significant chronic illness.

    From other (disorganised, anecdotal) data that I've seen thus far, that seems to be the case.

    And is also seems that "↑ comorbidities" → "↑ Pr(die|covid)"

    (It also means ↑ Pr(die|¬covid) but that's lost in the hubbub).

    Also... the usual caveat for people who don't 'get' probabilities.

    It doesn't mean that "symp+0"[1] people under 50 can never die-from covid19; just that the odds of doing so might be even smaller than they look, and they already look really small.

    [1]"symp + 0" is my internal shorthand for has covid19, is symptomatic, but no prior chronic illness
  25. @Michael S
    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.

    Policy matters more than demographics in this instance. While there are no doubt some demographic differences in CFR after getting sick, the virus is more than willing to spread to anyone.

    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.

    Exactly! If you’d plotted things out a month ago, California—and especially Silicon Valley—would have been a national epicenter of the outbreak, and many of those other states would have had no apparent cases at all. So the complete turnaround in California is very remarkable.

    Frankly, at that time I was very pessimistic that anything would be done before the tsunami of disease overwhelmed this state. Fortunately, some local public health officials took determined action:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

    As of right now, I’m hoping that California escapes with only a few thousands deaths among 40M residents. Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    With an exponential process, just a few days can make an enormous difference…

    • Replies: @utu

    Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.
     
    This model

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

    projects 16,000 deaths within [11,000, 21,000] bracket in NYS. The peak is predicted on April 10 with 845 daily deaths.

    Today (4/1) 505 deaths were reported in NYS.

    https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en
    , @DanHessinMD
    Ron --

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about. California's weather is far milder than the weather in New York.

    Meanwhile we collapsed the economy.

    My expectation is that the economic top is in. Not the top of the current bull market. The economic top of world history. We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.

    Our civilizational peak has already occurred, economically speaking.

    We have, for the moment, reduced our economy by what? More than 50%?

    We call 2% a bad recession.

    How are we going to build that back up in our lifetimes. All the developed countries are aging. Much of our economy was supported by a tower of debt and we manufacture so little at home now.

    All those who smugly feel good about how they put human lives above economic issues will have quite a lot of time to think about what is happening now.

    Headwinds:
    - Total economic collapse
    - Massive socialism as far as the eye can see
    - Total loss of confidence
    - Debt everywhere
    - Demographic decay of the smart fraction worldwide
    - Pools of capital which might have gone to investment and innovation now must support a massive unemployed underclass consisting of half the population.

    Okay smarties, you got what you wanted. You shut it all down. Now what?

    Do people know what the Dark Ages was in relation to the glory days of Rome? It was Social Distancing! People retreated from the center and the power of the network collapsed.

    This shutdown has no end in sight.

    , @Truth
    (Burrrrrp.)
  26. @prime noticer
    a county map would be more useful, and would show that big cities run by Democrats are the centers of infection. of course that is a secondary effect in a lot of ways, since as America 1.0 recedes in the rear view mirror, certain big cities become dominated by Democrat politics, increasingly decade by decade.

    i already did some calculations by median age per city, and wondered if young, vibrant cities would be less affected than cities with lots of old europeans. or at least, the young vibrants are clearly less affected than boomers simply due to age.

    this virus finds people over 60 who have some other disorder already, and kills them. that's pretty much 95% of who is going to die. so it can only kill so many people. and, we know who to quarantine, and why we don't need a society wide lockdown, which is total nonsense.

    roads, highways, suburbs, and car culture are protecting most of the US, versus subways and buses in metro cities, and the passenger rail system in europe.

    it makes no sense that MLB is not playing right now in empty stadiums. athletes in their 20s and 30s standing 30 feet away from each other, how dangerous, not. test all the players and staff, yank the guys who test positive, get on with playing the games. lots of people will stay inside to watch the games, instead of going outside and spreading the virus. the money is in the television contracts, the owners will be losing all ticket sales and concessions of unplayed games anyway, so start playing.

    this virus finds people over 60 who have some other disorder already, and kills them. that’s pretty much 95% of who is going to die.

    This is exactly what I was getting at in my comment a few minutes ago.

    It looks like it’s hitting over-60s if you do a “<60, 60+" split, but that's because '60+' includes 70+.

    70+ is where all the statistically relevant action is.

    The impact on 60-70 year olds is 65% less than for 70+ – and that’s without considering existing conditions.

    Even 70+ deaths are overwhelmingly RBIs.

    It also pays to be careful about what is being called a chronic existing condition or risk. NYT and other retards have included ‘obesity’ as a cofactor, which is retarded because it ignores the fact that a lot of people are obese (and there’s a massive overlap between obesity and diabetes: ‘obesity’ as a cofactor makes sense as a poor proxy for metabolic syndrome – i.e., pancreatic and other endocrine malfunction).

    Likewise, in general it’s highly likely that the association between hypertension and covid19 death is spurious (since elevated BP is a symptom of most important chronic disease, not a cause of anything by itself).

    I would say that, of course – because I’m a ‘hypertension -> CVD denier‘ (as I was a ‘fat->CVD‘ denier, a ‘salt->CVD‘ denier, a ‘cholesterol->CVD‘ denier, a ‘LDL -> CVD‘ denier, a ‘statins for 50yo men -> ↓ mortality’ denier, a ‘BMI>25 -> ↑ mortality‘ denier… and so on). I have a history of correctly denying things (KEK).

    • Replies: @anon
    Likewise, in general it’s highly likely that the association between hypertension and covid19 death is spurious (since elevated BP is a symptom of most important chronic disease, not a cause of anything by itself).

    One treatment for hypertension is ACE inhibitors:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACE_inhibitor

    Here is an explanation, the entire article is worth reading:

    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-common-diabetes-blood-pressure-meds-make-covid-19-worse-what-we-know#Understanding-the-theory

    “We therefore hypothesize that diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” the authors wrote. They said patients with cardiac diseases, hypertension, or diabetes who use drugs that increase ACE2 could be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and, therefore, should be monitored.
     
    However it is still too soon to be completely sure.

    One thing is certain, a lot of people under the age of 70 are on ACE-2 inhibitors for various reasons.
  27. @James Bowery
    Interactive Graph of States COVID-19 Per Capita History as of 3/30/2020

    You can hover over any intersection of a vertical hash mark (day) and trend line to get the trendline's State and number for that date.

    The link doesn’t work, but I want it to!

  28. @DanHessinMD
    "Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times."

    South Korea has had a far better trajectory than the others and the difference seems to be mask wearing. I don't like the idea of everyone in America wearing masks, but the data seems to point to that as being the most effective thing.

    That seems to be Japan’s secret, too.

  29. anon[201] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    zip code level view of confirmed cases in hawaii (Oahu):

    https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/04/01/closer-look-how-states-coronavirus-zip-code-maps-work/

    why is kailua/kaneohe to the east and the kahala area to the south red? Kahala is a wealthy area, so is kailua/kaneohe, to an extent. The working class–those who service the overseas tourists (including the Chinese and Koreans)–tend to be from central Oahu (waipahu-Pearl city). The poor areas, outside of Honolulu, are yellow. However, people involved with servicing tourists also tend to come from this area. Hm.

  30. @anon
    Mexico and points south are hardly impacted.

    So far. That could be changing. There are a lot of obese diabetics in Mexico. Look at the color map in this article, that dark spot is Mexico City. Air quality there has been poor for decades.

    https://www.mexicanist.com/l/coronavirus/

    Vietnam,

    It's a police state where quarantine is easy to enforce. There is no dissent.

    https://www.dw.com/en/how-vietnam-is-winning-its-war-on-coronavirus/a-52929967

    Globally the climatic contours are sharp.

    So far. It's still early in many places. Time will tell us a lot.

    Australia should be the place to watch in the next couple of months.

  31. @Ron Unz

    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.
     
    Exactly! If you'd plotted things out a month ago, California---and especially Silicon Valley---would have been a national epicenter of the outbreak, and many of those other states would have had no apparent cases at all. So the complete turnaround in California is very remarkable.

    Frankly, at that time I was very pessimistic that anything would be done before the tsunami of disease overwhelmed this state. Fortunately, some local public health officials took determined action:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

    As of right now, I'm hoping that California escapes with only a few thousands deaths among 40M residents. Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    With an exponential process, just a few days can make an enormous difference...

    Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    This model

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

    projects 16,000 deaths within [11,000, 21,000] bracket in NYS. The peak is predicted on April 10 with 845 daily deaths.

    Today (4/1) 505 deaths were reported in NYS.

    https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    projects 16,000 deaths within [11,000, 21,000] bracket in NYS. The peak is predicted on April 10 with 845 daily deaths.

    Today (4/1) 505 deaths were reported in NYS.
     
    Well, if that academic website was projecting NYS to peak with 845 daily fatalities on 4/10 and it's already at 505 today 4/1 (up from something like 50/day about a week ago), I think their model is as "unduly optimistic" as I had already thought it was.

    Therefore, if they were projecting 16K total deaths in NYS, that tends to suggest my estimate of more like 100K New York deaths is pretty reasonable.

    The big question is when/if the local NY health care system will collapse, thereby immediately quadrupling the daily death toll.
  32. @Kratoklastes
    To put the covid19 death rates per million in context: consider the highest - Louisiana, at 51/million.

    5.1/100,000 is a drop in the bucket given that the state's raw (annual) death rate is 977/100,000 (CDC, Deaths: Final Data for 2017 table 12).

    If Louisiana's 239 died-with covid deaths were distributed in line with the state's age distribution (i.e., mostly under 60), it would be a moderately important contribution to the state's mortality profile - but it's not distributed in line with the age distribution.

    Of Louisiana's 239 deaths, 208 are in the over-60s (and 177 are in the over-70s).

    Over-60s have a nation-wide death rate that starts at ~1000/100k (for 60-65 year olds) and goes up to ~13,500/100k for over 85s (CDC, Table 2).

    The Louisiana government doesn't give additional 'granularity' in deaths in the over-70s (Louisiana Data Panel for covid19), so we have to use '70+' mortality for that group, which means we have to calculate its underlying death rate.

    Pulling the data from behind the Population Pyramid on WorldPopulationReview - Louisiana gives a total LA population over 60 of 888,500 (and 366,600 of those are over 70).

    Doing some basic arithmetic we can get some numbers for 60-70 year olds: deaths = 31; population = 521,900.

    So we can get age-cohort covid death rates:
    60-70: 31/521,900 or 0.59/100k (or 0.0059%)
    60+: 208/888500 or 23.4/100k (0r 0.0234%)
    70+: 177/366600 or 48.2/100k (or 0.0482%)

    (Note that the populations are not "[Age bracket], with significant chronic health conditions").

    Age-weighting the Louisiana population by the national deaths rates by age and gender, gives an estimate of the expected (annual) death rate as follows:

    60-70: 1240/100k (1.24%/yr)
    60+: 2150/100k (2.15%/yr)
    70s+ 3429/100k (3.43%/yr)

    So covd19 deaths are - so far, in the worst-affected place in the US by population - a squootch under 1.1% of the total expected over-60 deaths for the year: we're 3 months into this 'crisis of existential proportions'.

    covid19 deaths as a proportion of total expected annual deaths:
    60-70: 0.47%
    60+: 1.09%
    70s+: 1.41%

    What this little exercise is meant to show, is that people need to be careful when they see numbers ascribed to a group that includes a natural partition into subgroups, where one subgroup is almost entirely unaffected.

    In this case, the number for "60+" is highly misleading in calculating expected impact on a cohort of 60-70 year olds.

    70+ has a natural partition between 'chronically ill' and 'not', for which data is not readily available, but even taken as a whole, the additional risk to a 70+ person in the most-affected state in the US is ridiculously small.

    The excess risk will be non-negligible for 70+ males with underlying conditions, and near-zero for almost everyone else. 60-70 females with no chronic underlying medical conditions, f'rinstance.

    Doing this for all 50 states is a trivial exercise; I'll do it sometime today. We can't do tables up in this bitch, so once it's done I'll have to post a picture of a table.

    Thanks very much.

  33. @Ron Unz

    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.
     
    Exactly! If you'd plotted things out a month ago, California---and especially Silicon Valley---would have been a national epicenter of the outbreak, and many of those other states would have had no apparent cases at all. So the complete turnaround in California is very remarkable.

    Frankly, at that time I was very pessimistic that anything would be done before the tsunami of disease overwhelmed this state. Fortunately, some local public health officials took determined action:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

    As of right now, I'm hoping that California escapes with only a few thousands deaths among 40M residents. Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    With an exponential process, just a few days can make an enormous difference...

    Ron —

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about. California’s weather is far milder than the weather in New York.

    Meanwhile we collapsed the economy.

    My expectation is that the economic top is in. Not the top of the current bull market. The economic top of world history. We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.

    Our civilizational peak has already occurred, economically speaking.

    We have, for the moment, reduced our economy by what? More than 50%?

    We call 2% a bad recession.

    How are we going to build that back up in our lifetimes. All the developed countries are aging. Much of our economy was supported by a tower of debt and we manufacture so little at home now.

    All those who smugly feel good about how they put human lives above economic issues will have quite a lot of time to think about what is happening now.

    Headwinds:
    – Total economic collapse
    – Massive socialism as far as the eye can see
    – Total loss of confidence
    – Debt everywhere
    – Demographic decay of the smart fraction worldwide
    – Pools of capital which might have gone to investment and innovation now must support a massive unemployed underclass consisting of half the population.

    Okay smarties, you got what you wanted. You shut it all down. Now what?

    Do people know what the Dark Ages was in relation to the glory days of Rome? It was Social Distancing! People retreated from the center and the power of the network collapsed.

    This shutdown has no end in sight.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about.
     
    Well sure, but it's the trend-line...

    Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.

    With the possible exception of Washington State, California was the early national epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak. It had a multitude of reported cases when some of the current hotspots had none at all. How does "the weather" explain that?

    Yet astonishingly enough, California turned it around because of the very high competence of (at least some) local government officials, in sharp contrast to those in all too many other states and (especially) at the federal level.

    Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if CA comes out of this much better than almost any other large state (maybe TX will be alright) despite having started at the worst point. In fact, the biggest reasonable concern would be hordes of desperate infected refugees pouring into CA from other states that have gotten very bad and restarting the epidemic locally. Fortunately, air travel is down to almost nothing so maybe some sort of 14 day quarantine can be imposed.
    , @Brás Cubas

    We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.
     
    And test extensively, as Nobel prize winner Paul Romer has proposed:
    Will Our Economy Die From Coronavirus?
    (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-depression.html).

    In my humble opinion, the huge delay by WHO in recommending the use of masks by the asymptomatic is *extremely* suspicious. Of course, they could be just stupid, but then again the appointment of stupid people to such positions would itself be *extremely* suspicious.

    Something else that I find *extremely* suspicious is the impossibility of obtaining accurate information about the research status on antibody testing. Do they have them yet or not? Once one is found to have antibodies, he can go out safely and activate the economy.

    These lockdowns are insane. They will kill the economy, and will not kill the virus. Once the lockdown is over, we are back to square one. The percentage of the immunized will be only partial and the virus will spread again, until a new lockdown is decreed. This is endless, until the economy is completely dead.

    It would be better then to decree a two-year lockdown and adjust all the companies to work-at-home and the supermarkets and grocers to delivery-of-basic-goods. Such as it is, the supermarkets and grocers refuse to invest in something that will only last one or two months and then after that period have to return to the usual system. If people have to go out for shopping for food, they will bring the virus home where they are confined with their families. Then all of them will become infected. Unless of course they live alone in their mansions, like some of the enthusiasts of lockdowns.

    In short, most countries are following a recipe for disaster. Or maybe it is a ploy of the global warming crowd who saw no other way of stopping carbon emission.
  34. @DanHessinMD
    Ron --

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about. California's weather is far milder than the weather in New York.

    Meanwhile we collapsed the economy.

    My expectation is that the economic top is in. Not the top of the current bull market. The economic top of world history. We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.

    Our civilizational peak has already occurred, economically speaking.

    We have, for the moment, reduced our economy by what? More than 50%?

    We call 2% a bad recession.

    How are we going to build that back up in our lifetimes. All the developed countries are aging. Much of our economy was supported by a tower of debt and we manufacture so little at home now.

    All those who smugly feel good about how they put human lives above economic issues will have quite a lot of time to think about what is happening now.

    Headwinds:
    - Total economic collapse
    - Massive socialism as far as the eye can see
    - Total loss of confidence
    - Debt everywhere
    - Demographic decay of the smart fraction worldwide
    - Pools of capital which might have gone to investment and innovation now must support a massive unemployed underclass consisting of half the population.

    Okay smarties, you got what you wanted. You shut it all down. Now what?

    Do people know what the Dark Ages was in relation to the glory days of Rome? It was Social Distancing! People retreated from the center and the power of the network collapsed.

    This shutdown has no end in sight.

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about.

    Well sure, but it’s the trend-line…

    Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.

    With the possible exception of Washington State, California was the early national epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak. It had a multitude of reported cases when some of the current hotspots had none at all. How does “the weather” explain that?

    Yet astonishingly enough, California turned it around because of the very high competence of (at least some) local government officials, in sharp contrast to those in all too many other states and (especially) at the federal level.

    Right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if CA comes out of this much better than almost any other large state (maybe TX will be alright) despite having started at the worst point. In fact, the biggest reasonable concern would be hordes of desperate infected refugees pouring into CA from other states that have gotten very bad and restarting the epidemic locally. Fortunately, air travel is down to almost nothing so maybe some sort of 14 day quarantine can be imposed.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    Ron --

    How do you suppose we get out of this?

    "Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results."

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?

    Meanwhile, hardly anyone is even wearing or advocating for masks.

    I imagine California and other big food producing states will have to re-open so we don't have widespread hunger.
    , @TomSchmidt
    "Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results."

    True. Now, is catabolic collapse an exponential process? Probably not, because there are no exponential processes outside of pure math, but it does have the S curve shape as complexity falls in on itself.
  35. Covid 19 is just the flu type symptoms With a fancy name. The test that is used is bogus and will identify about 200 disease symptoms as Corona. Was not intended to be used outside the lab. Read Nomorefakenews.com by Jon Rappaport also Jeremy R. Hammond. In 10-18-20 Bill Gates conducted big meeting to prepare for Pandemic. This is all a drill by the Zionists to promote the phony and harmful vaccine scam(big money for the Pharma Racket) and to condition the domestic Goyim cattle for the Hunger Game Society. Senators also pulled money out of market after closed door meeting and warning big donors of the fix. The elites are raiding the treasuries just like in 08-09.

    • Agree: Hippopotamusdrome
  36. t says:

    Data for NYC is available by zip code: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-cases-by-zip.pdf

    Eyeballing it Chinese zip codes have lower rates of infection than areas around them(you can get demographics by zip code from statisticalatlas.com). Two possibilities come to find 1. East Asians have some inherited immunity to the virus; or more likely the Chinese population has been aware of the virus and has been wearing masks to protect themselves.

    • Replies: @t
    In Brooklyn zip code 11220(pop.101,006 41% hispanic 41% Asian 14% White) has 264 cases, next door zip code 11219 (pop. 96,287 60% 25% Asian 12% Hispanic) has 771 cases.

    In Queens zip code 11355(pop. 82,028 73% Asian 13% Hispanic 7% White) has 213 cases, next door zip code 11368 (pop. 112,982 72% Hispanic 12% Asian 11% black) has 947 cases.

    Zip cod 11368 is the hardest hit in the city and the area is actually called Corona, I guess the virus is living up to it's name. https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/corona-nycs-epicenter-coronavirus-outbreak.
  37. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Disagree. Policy has not proven itself to be of any great impact.

    If you were to consult a chart of deaths per ten million across several countries, you would see what I mean.

    Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times.

    The reality is that our system here in the states has been so weakened by years of materialist philosophy and Judaized economics that we can't bear the strain of a flu pandemic that Dr. Fauci and the New England Journal of Medicine compare to previous pandemics (1957 and 1968) that were handled with ease.

    In America, there are three reasons for the efforts to "lock down" everyone:

    The first is that we don't have particularly good hospital capacity (New York has closed 16 in 10 years).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Capitalism and socialism are both stupid ways to manage health care. Health care was and ought to be run by the likes of Catholic religious orders, not (((business people))) or government bureaucrats (perhaps I should say (((bureaucrats))) )

    The second reason is that our moronic trade policy of unrequited free trade has left us with a shortage of masks. Luckily many Americans have enough starch left in them to make their own.

    Those two reasons are due to incompetence and greed.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    The third reason is because rich people want to buy up all the distressed assets of small businesses that are gonna be killled.

    Not only that, but I suspect even the globalists are going tobe able to spin this to their advantage:

    We’re all human.
    We all bleed red.
    Humanity v. Nature.
    Global solutions for global problems, etc.

  38. anon[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes

    this virus finds people over 60 who have some other disorder already, and kills them. that’s pretty much 95% of who is going to die.
     
    This is exactly what I was getting at in my comment a few minutes ago.

    It looks like it's hitting over-60s if you do a "<60, 60+" split, but that's because '60+' includes 70+.

    70+ is where all the statistically relevant action is.

    The impact on 60-70 year olds is 65% less than for 70+ - and that's without considering existing conditions.

    Even 70+ deaths are overwhelmingly RBIs.

    It also pays to be careful about what is being called a chronic existing condition or risk. NYT and other retards have included 'obesity' as a cofactor, which is retarded because it ignores the fact that a lot of people are obese (and there's a massive overlap between obesity and diabetes: 'obesity' as a cofactor makes sense as a poor proxy for metabolic syndrome - i.e., pancreatic and other endocrine malfunction).

    Likewise, in general it's highly likely that the association between hypertension and covid19 death is spurious (since elevated BP is a symptom of most important chronic disease, not a cause of anything by itself).

    I would say that, of course - because I'm a 'hypertension -> CVD denier' (as I was a 'fat->CVD' denier, a 'salt->CVD' denier, a 'cholesterol->CVD' denier, a 'LDL -> CVD' denier, a 'statins for 50yo men -> ↓ mortality' denier, a 'BMI>25 -> ↑ mortality' denier... and so on). I have a history of correctly denying things (KEK).

    Likewise, in general it’s highly likely that the association between hypertension and covid19 death is spurious (since elevated BP is a symptom of most important chronic disease, not a cause of anything by itself).

    One treatment for hypertension is ACE inhibitors:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACE_inhibitor

    Here is an explanation, the entire article is worth reading:

    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-common-diabetes-blood-pressure-meds-make-covid-19-worse-what-we-know#Understanding-the-theory

    “We therefore hypothesize that diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” the authors wrote. They said patients with cardiac diseases, hypertension, or diabetes who use drugs that increase ACE2 could be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and, therefore, should be monitored.

    However it is still too soon to be completely sure.

    One thing is certain, a lot of people under the age of 70 are on ACE-2 inhibitors for various reasons.

  39. t says:
    @t
    Data for NYC is available by zip code: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-cases-by-zip.pdf

    Eyeballing it Chinese zip codes have lower rates of infection than areas around them(you can get demographics by zip code from statisticalatlas.com). Two possibilities come to find 1. East Asians have some inherited immunity to the virus; or more likely the Chinese population has been aware of the virus and has been wearing masks to protect themselves.

    In Brooklyn zip code 11220(pop.101,006 41% hispanic 41% Asian 14% White) has 264 cases, next door zip code 11219 (pop. 96,287 60% 25% Asian 12% Hispanic) has 771 cases.

    In Queens zip code 11355(pop. 82,028 73% Asian 13% Hispanic 7% White) has 213 cases, next door zip code 11368 (pop. 112,982 72% Hispanic 12% Asian 11% black) has 947 cases.

    Zip cod 11368 is the hardest hit in the city and the area is actually called Corona, I guess the virus is living up to it’s name. https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/corona-nycs-epicenter-coronavirus-outbreak.

  40. @James Bowery
    Interactive Graph of States COVID-19 Per Capita History as of 3/30/2020

    You can hover over any intersection of a vertical hash mark (day) and trend line to get the trendline's State and number for that date.
  41. @utu

    Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.
     
    This model

    https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

    projects 16,000 deaths within [11,000, 21,000] bracket in NYS. The peak is predicted on April 10 with 845 daily deaths.

    Today (4/1) 505 deaths were reported in NYS.

    https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en

    projects 16,000 deaths within [11,000, 21,000] bracket in NYS. The peak is predicted on April 10 with 845 daily deaths.

    Today (4/1) 505 deaths were reported in NYS.

    Well, if that academic website was projecting NYS to peak with 845 daily fatalities on 4/10 and it’s already at 505 today 4/1 (up from something like 50/day about a week ago), I think their model is as “unduly optimistic” as I had already thought it was.

    Therefore, if they were projecting 16K total deaths in NYS, that tends to suggest my estimate of more like 100K New York deaths is pretty reasonable.

    The big question is when/if the local NY health care system will collapse, thereby immediately quadrupling the daily death toll.

  42. I have a comment that appears to be stuck in a spam trap.

  43. @Kratoklastes
    To put the covid19 death rates per million in context: consider the highest - Louisiana, at 51/million.

    5.1/100,000 is a drop in the bucket given that the state's raw (annual) death rate is 977/100,000 (CDC, Deaths: Final Data for 2017 table 12).

    If Louisiana's 239 died-with covid deaths were distributed in line with the state's age distribution (i.e., mostly under 60), it would be a moderately important contribution to the state's mortality profile - but it's not distributed in line with the age distribution.

    Of Louisiana's 239 deaths, 208 are in the over-60s (and 177 are in the over-70s).

    Over-60s have a nation-wide death rate that starts at ~1000/100k (for 60-65 year olds) and goes up to ~13,500/100k for over 85s (CDC, Table 2).

    The Louisiana government doesn't give additional 'granularity' in deaths in the over-70s (Louisiana Data Panel for covid19), so we have to use '70+' mortality for that group, which means we have to calculate its underlying death rate.

    Pulling the data from behind the Population Pyramid on WorldPopulationReview - Louisiana gives a total LA population over 60 of 888,500 (and 366,600 of those are over 70).

    Doing some basic arithmetic we can get some numbers for 60-70 year olds: deaths = 31; population = 521,900.

    So we can get age-cohort covid death rates:
    60-70: 31/521,900 or 0.59/100k (or 0.0059%)
    60+: 208/888500 or 23.4/100k (0r 0.0234%)
    70+: 177/366600 or 48.2/100k (or 0.0482%)

    (Note that the populations are not "[Age bracket], with significant chronic health conditions").

    Age-weighting the Louisiana population by the national deaths rates by age and gender, gives an estimate of the expected (annual) death rate as follows:

    60-70: 1240/100k (1.24%/yr)
    60+: 2150/100k (2.15%/yr)
    70s+ 3429/100k (3.43%/yr)

    So covd19 deaths are - so far, in the worst-affected place in the US by population - a squootch under 1.1% of the total expected over-60 deaths for the year: we're 3 months into this 'crisis of existential proportions'.

    covid19 deaths as a proportion of total expected annual deaths:
    60-70: 0.47%
    60+: 1.09%
    70s+: 1.41%

    What this little exercise is meant to show, is that people need to be careful when they see numbers ascribed to a group that includes a natural partition into subgroups, where one subgroup is almost entirely unaffected.

    In this case, the number for "60+" is highly misleading in calculating expected impact on a cohort of 60-70 year olds.

    70+ has a natural partition between 'chronically ill' and 'not', for which data is not readily available, but even taken as a whole, the additional risk to a 70+ person in the most-affected state in the US is ridiculously small.

    The excess risk will be non-negligible for 70+ males with underlying conditions, and near-zero for almost everyone else. 60-70 females with no chronic underlying medical conditions, f'rinstance.

    Doing this for all 50 states is a trivial exercise; I'll do it sometime today. We can't do tables up in this bitch, so once it's done I'll have to post a picture of a table.

    70+ has a natural partition between ‘chronically ill’ and ‘not’, for which data is not readily available

    I should add – the absence of that extra granularity is not the fault of the US in particular.

    Globally, everyone who is generating available data, is doing so in fairly ‘HelloWorld‘ ways that limit the ability of data-dredgers to make useful inferences.

    There was a really good Chinese-CDC study on comorbidities a week or so ago, for example – big sample, fairly high-quality data and what-not. Vital Surveillances: The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) — China, 2020, which gives the breakdown of 44,672 confirmed cases, with a raw all-age-groups CFR of 2.3%.

    The most obvious pattern in the deaths from that paper, is that the death rate plummets if the patient is under 60 years of age, regardless of comorbidities.

    Age Band CFR
    <40 <0.2
    40-49 0.4
    50-59 1.3
    60-69 3.6
    70-79 8.0
    80+ 14.8

    By Comorbidity:
    Disease CFR
    CVD 10.5
    Diabetes 7.3
    CRD 6.3
    Hypertension 6.0
    Cancer 5.6
    None 0.9

    (CRD: Chronic respiratory disease – which includes things like cystic fibrosis, COPD etc)

    There's enough data to back-solve for the 'raw' sample-wide CFR for those with comorbidities.

    As noted in a footnote to Table 1, they only had 20,812 patients (and 504 deaths) with detailed comorbidity data (including the ability to definitively claim no comorbidities).

    Of those,
    • 15,536 patients (and 133 deaths) had zero comorbidities – so a CFR of 0.9%.
    • 5,276 patients (and 371 deaths) had 1+ comorbidities – so a CFR of 7.0%.

    One thing that’s worrisome: the numbers for the individual ‘comorbid condition’ line items in the table, sums to exactly 5,276.

    This indicates that there were zero joint comorbidities, which is hugely unlikely. They must have selected a ‘primary’ comorbidity where two or more are found together (so ‘CVD+Hypertension’ = CVD).

    For patients with ‘missing’ comorbidity data, CFR was 2.6 – which means that the those for which comorbidity data was absent, appear very-slightly more mortal than the ones for which comorbidity data was available (but well within statistical tolerances).

    All of that’s really useful, so far as it goes, but it’s still not possible to estimate, say, the excess morbidity-related risk for someone aged 30, because this data doesn’t distribute comorbidities and comorbidity-related deaths by age group.

    That’s what I mean by ‘HelloWorld‘ data-science.

    Given the original data it’s literally a crosstab (or in SQL, a different ‘GROUP BY’) – but they didn’t do it (I’m trying to find out whether it’s been done elsewhere).

    The lack of age-comorbidity data really ruins the data as a useful thing for calculating excess risk by age bands.

    To see why this matters:

    There were 873 ‘covid19+CVD’, of whom 92 died.

    So 10.5% of people with “covid19 + CVD” died. Unconditionally, an arbitrarily-selected individual with CVD has about a 10.5% chance of dying, which is ~4x the population estimate.

    That’s useful, but what if a person without CVD has other known characteristics (e.g., they’re under 40)?

    Is their risk if they contract covid19 0.2%? Or does it turn out that most – or even all – mortality risk in the under-40 age group come from people with chronic illness?

    Since there’s no information about the age distribution of the 92 ‘covid19+CVD’ subsample (and deaths), the Chinese CDC paper can’t help.

    This is more important that trying to work out if the conditional risk for a 30 year old is 0.2% or 0; it might make a huge difference deeper into the age roster.

    If cormobidities were significantly present in deaths of those aged 50-70, the conditional risk of dying might be near zero for an under 70 unless they have significant chronic illness.

    From other (disorganised, anecdotal) data that I’ve seen thus far, that seems to be the case.

    And is also seems that “↑ comorbidities” → “↑ Pr(die|covid)”

    (It also means ↑ Pr(die|¬covid) but that’s lost in the hubbub).

    Also… the usual caveat for people who don’t ‘get’ probabilities.

    It doesn’t mean that “symp+0“[1] people under 50 can never die-from covid19; just that the odds of doing so might be even smaller than they look, and they already look really small.

    [1]”symp + 0” is my internal shorthand for has covid19, is symptomatic, but no prior chronic illness

  44. @Ron Unz

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about.
     
    Well sure, but it's the trend-line...

    Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.

    With the possible exception of Washington State, California was the early national epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak. It had a multitude of reported cases when some of the current hotspots had none at all. How does "the weather" explain that?

    Yet astonishingly enough, California turned it around because of the very high competence of (at least some) local government officials, in sharp contrast to those in all too many other states and (especially) at the federal level.

    Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if CA comes out of this much better than almost any other large state (maybe TX will be alright) despite having started at the worst point. In fact, the biggest reasonable concern would be hordes of desperate infected refugees pouring into CA from other states that have gotten very bad and restarting the epidemic locally. Fortunately, air travel is down to almost nothing so maybe some sort of 14 day quarantine can be imposed.

    Ron —

    How do you suppose we get out of this?

    “Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.”

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?

    Meanwhile, hardly anyone is even wearing or advocating for masks.

    I imagine California and other big food producing states will have to re-open so we don’t have widespread hunger.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?
     
    Well, absent all the horrific disasters in much of the rest of the country, I'd hope that California would be able to gradually come out of its lockdown within another couple of months or so. That would be especially true if (as some people speculate) the Coronavirus will become inactive in warmer summer weather.

    A couple of months of solid home-lockdown might reduce the further spread to a very low level, maybe even approaching the R0=0.3 that China achieved in its own lockdown.

    I think infected people are generally only contagious for a couple of weeks or so, asymptomatic or not. So during a lockdown 3-4 times as long, it seems plausible that the overwhelming majority of infected people will no longer be infectious, while those newly infected (and therefore contagious) will have mostly developed medical symptoms and can be quarantined.

    That, plus keeping sensible policies like hand-washing and wearings masks, plus contact-tracing should put things back on an even keel.

    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system. So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option...
  45. @DanHessinMD
    Ron --

    How do you suppose we get out of this?

    "Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results."

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?

    Meanwhile, hardly anyone is even wearing or advocating for masks.

    I imagine California and other big food producing states will have to re-open so we don't have widespread hunger.

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?

    Well, absent all the horrific disasters in much of the rest of the country, I’d hope that California would be able to gradually come out of its lockdown within another couple of months or so. That would be especially true if (as some people speculate) the Coronavirus will become inactive in warmer summer weather.

    A couple of months of solid home-lockdown might reduce the further spread to a very low level, maybe even approaching the R0=0.3 that China achieved in its own lockdown.

    I think infected people are generally only contagious for a couple of weeks or so, asymptomatic or not. So during a lockdown 3-4 times as long, it seems plausible that the overwhelming majority of infected people will no longer be infectious, while those newly infected (and therefore contagious) will have mostly developed medical symptoms and can be quarantined.

    That, plus keeping sensible policies like hand-washing and wearings masks, plus contact-tracing should put things back on an even keel.

    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system. So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option…

    • Replies: @eah
    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system.

    So you imagine "hordes of tens of thousands" of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? -- where would they live? -- in their cars? -- what would they do for money? -- it's possible to receive unemployment in another state, but there is a process to navigate, plus usually a short waiting period; how far would unemployment benefits go in CA? -- do you think they could get jobs in CA? -- are you aware of how many people live paycheck to paycheck (I've seen as high as 75%) -- ?

    Does that really make sense? -- no, it does not make sense.

    , @iffen
    So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option…

    Don't let the door hit you in the ...
  46. @JohnPlywood
    Colorado is doing oddly bad for their inland isolation (this virus clearly thrives in coastal areas near large bodies of water).

    In an Anatoly Karlin thread, I observed that some of the hardest hit areas globally are often areas with a lot of radon. And indeed, Colorado has very high levels of radon:

    https://www.protechenvironmental.com/img/radon_map_radon_potential_us.gif

    However there's also a source of ionizing radiation unique to Colorado, which has been the negligence of the nuclear industry there. The most well documented disaster has been the Rocky Flats incident and subsequent "cleanup". Although plutonium levels are considered safe there I imagine the effect of higher than average radon + plutonium + cosmic rays from the altitude are taxing lungs in what is otherwise a very isolated region.

    Your radon map indicates far west Texas ought to have a number of corona virus cases. In fact, other than El Paso County, far west Texas has NO CORONA VIRUS CASES…maybe the fact that it is rural remote has something to do with it. The Permian Basin area has some, one death, and that’s it for west Texas.

  47. anon[368] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnPlywood
    Colorado is doing oddly bad for their inland isolation (this virus clearly thrives in coastal areas near large bodies of water).

    In an Anatoly Karlin thread, I observed that some of the hardest hit areas globally are often areas with a lot of radon. And indeed, Colorado has very high levels of radon:

    https://www.protechenvironmental.com/img/radon_map_radon_potential_us.gif

    However there's also a source of ionizing radiation unique to Colorado, which has been the negligence of the nuclear industry there. The most well documented disaster has been the Rocky Flats incident and subsequent "cleanup". Although plutonium levels are considered safe there I imagine the effect of higher than average radon + plutonium + cosmic rays from the altitude are taxing lungs in what is otherwise a very isolated region.

    Add altitude, which increases radiation exposure, the urbanites in the Denver area, along with the stress of being around groid crime and the typical libturd city dweller and we can draw some additional variables for a model. Of course age is important, as is the level of humidity. Basically we look at all the risk factors for pneumonia and go from there

  48. eah says:
    @Ron Unz

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?
     
    Well, absent all the horrific disasters in much of the rest of the country, I'd hope that California would be able to gradually come out of its lockdown within another couple of months or so. That would be especially true if (as some people speculate) the Coronavirus will become inactive in warmer summer weather.

    A couple of months of solid home-lockdown might reduce the further spread to a very low level, maybe even approaching the R0=0.3 that China achieved in its own lockdown.

    I think infected people are generally only contagious for a couple of weeks or so, asymptomatic or not. So during a lockdown 3-4 times as long, it seems plausible that the overwhelming majority of infected people will no longer be infectious, while those newly infected (and therefore contagious) will have mostly developed medical symptoms and can be quarantined.

    That, plus keeping sensible policies like hand-washing and wearings masks, plus contact-tracing should put things back on an even keel.

    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system. So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option...

    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system.

    So you imagine “hordes of tens of thousands” of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? — where would they live? — in their cars? — what would they do for money? — it’s possible to receive unemployment in another state, but there is a process to navigate, plus usually a short waiting period; how far would unemployment benefits go in CA? — do you think they could get jobs in CA? — are you aware of how many people live paycheck to paycheck (I’ve seen as high as 75%) — ?

    Does that really make sense? — no, it does not make sense.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    So you imagine “hordes of tens of thousands” of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? — where would they live? — in their cars? — what would they do for money?
     
    Well, I was speaking in an expansive manner, but I think the possibility is not unreasonable.

    NY, FL, and a few of those other potentially very hard-hit states have a population totaling more than 50M. If CA remains largely infection-free, is it so utter implausible that something like 0.05% of them might try to flee there?

    And many of those "refugees" would surely be quite wealthy, so that they couldn't need to worry about those issues you cite. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected with Coronavirus these days.
  49. @Kratoklastes
    Filtering by (rough) age doesn't do much - using some data from the Population Reference Bureau on the proportion of people aged 65+ by state.

    The raw correlations between that and
    • cases/100k by state is -o.03
    • deaths/million by state is -o.05.

    That's not really surprising, because the actual number of cases (and deaths) as a proportion of the total population in each age group is basically a rounding error.

    When you're dealing with such minuscule proportions of the total population things tend to bounce around and correlations go to shit unless there's direct causative relationship (e.g., between cases and deaths).

    Since Americans tend to retire to the suburbs/countryside, the increased vulnerability due to age is probably being offset by decreased vulnerability due to lower population density where most aged folk live.

    Cases where this retirement pattern doesn’t apply, e.g., Hasidic neighborhoods and urban ghettos, are what we now call “hotspots”.

  50. @Ron Unz

    Okay, so now what? Does California just remain in lockdown forever? COVID-19 will be in California and everywhere else continuously for the foreseeable future. Is there any possibility of re-opening?
     
    Well, absent all the horrific disasters in much of the rest of the country, I'd hope that California would be able to gradually come out of its lockdown within another couple of months or so. That would be especially true if (as some people speculate) the Coronavirus will become inactive in warmer summer weather.

    A couple of months of solid home-lockdown might reduce the further spread to a very low level, maybe even approaching the R0=0.3 that China achieved in its own lockdown.

    I think infected people are generally only contagious for a couple of weeks or so, asymptomatic or not. So during a lockdown 3-4 times as long, it seems plausible that the overwhelming majority of infected people will no longer be infectious, while those newly infected (and therefore contagious) will have mostly developed medical symptoms and can be quarantined.

    That, plus keeping sensible policies like hand-washing and wearings masks, plus contact-tracing should put things back on an even keel.

    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system. So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option...

    So maybe CalExit will be revived as a political option…

    Don’t let the door hit you in the …

  51. @Ron Unz

    California saw the earliest spread but was also one of the earliest states (maybe the earliest?) to go into lockdown.
     
    Exactly! If you'd plotted things out a month ago, California---and especially Silicon Valley---would have been a national epicenter of the outbreak, and many of those other states would have had no apparent cases at all. So the complete turnaround in California is very remarkable.

    Frankly, at that time I was very pessimistic that anything would be done before the tsunami of disease overwhelmed this state. Fortunately, some local public health officials took determined action:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-government-employee-who-may-have-saved-a-million-american-lives/

    As of right now, I'm hoping that California escapes with only a few thousands deaths among 40M residents. Meanwhile, I think New York will be lucky to avoid 100K deaths by early summer.

    With an exponential process, just a few days can make an enormous difference...

    (Burrrrrp.)

  52. @eah
    Maybe the biggest problem may be desperate hordes of tens of thousands of (often infected) refugees from NY, FL, IL, and other hotspots coming into CA and overwhelming the system.

    So you imagine "hordes of tens of thousands" of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? -- where would they live? -- in their cars? -- what would they do for money? -- it's possible to receive unemployment in another state, but there is a process to navigate, plus usually a short waiting period; how far would unemployment benefits go in CA? -- do you think they could get jobs in CA? -- are you aware of how many people live paycheck to paycheck (I've seen as high as 75%) -- ?

    Does that really make sense? -- no, it does not make sense.

    So you imagine “hordes of tens of thousands” of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? — where would they live? — in their cars? — what would they do for money?

    Well, I was speaking in an expansive manner, but I think the possibility is not unreasonable.

    NY, FL, and a few of those other potentially very hard-hit states have a population totaling more than 50M. If CA remains largely infection-free, is it so utter implausible that something like 0.05% of them might try to flee there?

    And many of those “refugees” would surely be quite wealthy, so that they couldn’t need to worry about those issues you cite. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected with Coronavirus these days.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected

    Unfortunately?

    Really?

    LOL
  53. @Ron Unz

    So you imagine “hordes of tens of thousands” of people would leave everything behind in order to travel to the most expensive state (some surveys say HI is the more expensive)? — where would they live? — in their cars? — what would they do for money?
     
    Well, I was speaking in an expansive manner, but I think the possibility is not unreasonable.

    NY, FL, and a few of those other potentially very hard-hit states have a population totaling more than 50M. If CA remains largely infection-free, is it so utter implausible that something like 0.05% of them might try to flee there?

    And many of those "refugees" would surely be quite wealthy, so that they couldn't need to worry about those issues you cite. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected with Coronavirus these days.

    Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected

    Unfortunately?

    Really?

    LOL

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Looks like you won't even need to run the firing squads.
  54. @DanHessinMD
    Ron --

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about. California's weather is far milder than the weather in New York.

    Meanwhile we collapsed the economy.

    My expectation is that the economic top is in. Not the top of the current bull market. The economic top of world history. We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.

    Our civilizational peak has already occurred, economically speaking.

    We have, for the moment, reduced our economy by what? More than 50%?

    We call 2% a bad recession.

    How are we going to build that back up in our lifetimes. All the developed countries are aging. Much of our economy was supported by a tower of debt and we manufacture so little at home now.

    All those who smugly feel good about how they put human lives above economic issues will have quite a lot of time to think about what is happening now.

    Headwinds:
    - Total economic collapse
    - Massive socialism as far as the eye can see
    - Total loss of confidence
    - Debt everywhere
    - Demographic decay of the smart fraction worldwide
    - Pools of capital which might have gone to investment and innovation now must support a massive unemployed underclass consisting of half the population.

    Okay smarties, you got what you wanted. You shut it all down. Now what?

    Do people know what the Dark Ages was in relation to the glory days of Rome? It was Social Distancing! People retreated from the center and the power of the network collapsed.

    This shutdown has no end in sight.

    We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.

    And test extensively, as Nobel prize winner Paul Romer has proposed:
    Will Our Economy Die From Coronavirus?
    (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-depression.html).

    In my humble opinion, the huge delay by WHO in recommending the use of masks by the asymptomatic is *extremely* suspicious. Of course, they could be just stupid, but then again the appointment of stupid people to such positions would itself be *extremely* suspicious.

    Something else that I find *extremely* suspicious is the impossibility of obtaining accurate information about the research status on antibody testing. Do they have them yet or not? Once one is found to have antibodies, he can go out safely and activate the economy.

    These lockdowns are insane. They will kill the economy, and will not kill the virus. Once the lockdown is over, we are back to square one. The percentage of the immunized will be only partial and the virus will spread again, until a new lockdown is decreed. This is endless, until the economy is completely dead.

    It would be better then to decree a two-year lockdown and adjust all the companies to work-at-home and the supermarkets and grocers to delivery-of-basic-goods. Such as it is, the supermarkets and grocers refuse to invest in something that will only last one or two months and then after that period have to return to the usual system. If people have to go out for shopping for food, they will bring the virus home where they are confined with their families. Then all of them will become infected. Unless of course they live alone in their mansions, like some of the enthusiasts of lockdowns.

    In short, most countries are following a recipe for disaster. Or maybe it is a ploy of the global warming crowd who saw no other way of stopping carbon emission.

    • Replies: @anon
    Something else that I find *extremely* suspicious is the impossibility of obtaining accurate information about the research status on antibody testing. Do they have them yet or not?

    Dude, do you even Google? Look at the first few results on this search.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=COVID-19+antibody+test&t=brave&ia=news

    Do you even iSteve? Search the site for "Telluride".

    smh.
  55. @iffen
    Unfortunately, the empirical evidence is that the affluent are sometimes more likely to be infected

    Unfortunately?

    Really?

    LOL

    Looks like you won’t even need to run the firing squads.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Guillotine, Daniel, please. Have a little respect for civilization, not to mention my comment history.
  56. anon[193] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brás Cubas

    We shut it all down, when we could have just worn facemasks for a while.
     
    And test extensively, as Nobel prize winner Paul Romer has proposed:
    Will Our Economy Die From Coronavirus?
    (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-depression.html).

    In my humble opinion, the huge delay by WHO in recommending the use of masks by the asymptomatic is *extremely* suspicious. Of course, they could be just stupid, but then again the appointment of stupid people to such positions would itself be *extremely* suspicious.

    Something else that I find *extremely* suspicious is the impossibility of obtaining accurate information about the research status on antibody testing. Do they have them yet or not? Once one is found to have antibodies, he can go out safely and activate the economy.

    These lockdowns are insane. They will kill the economy, and will not kill the virus. Once the lockdown is over, we are back to square one. The percentage of the immunized will be only partial and the virus will spread again, until a new lockdown is decreed. This is endless, until the economy is completely dead.

    It would be better then to decree a two-year lockdown and adjust all the companies to work-at-home and the supermarkets and grocers to delivery-of-basic-goods. Such as it is, the supermarkets and grocers refuse to invest in something that will only last one or two months and then after that period have to return to the usual system. If people have to go out for shopping for food, they will bring the virus home where they are confined with their families. Then all of them will become infected. Unless of course they live alone in their mansions, like some of the enthusiasts of lockdowns.

    In short, most countries are following a recipe for disaster. Or maybe it is a ploy of the global warming crowd who saw no other way of stopping carbon emission.

    Something else that I find *extremely* suspicious is the impossibility of obtaining accurate information about the research status on antibody testing. Do they have them yet or not?

    Dude, do you even Google? Look at the first few results on this search.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=COVID-19+antibody+test&t=brave&ia=news

    Do you even iSteve? Search the site for “Telluride”.

    smh.

  57. @anon
    Tiny Crow quotes Tim Langer, a public health official from Minnesota:

    Our advice has been to look to credible sources of information like the Minnesota Department of Health and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). ”
     
    The credible sources of information at the CDC had this to say on Feb. 12:

    CDC does not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general public. This virus is not spreading in the community.
     
    Here's the link:
    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html

    They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?

    We'll see how the pandemic plays out. Some rural areas may be only lightly affected by this, due to early shutdown of travel from China and general reduction of intra US travel. Or not. Too soon to tell.

    Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy; international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19. Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.

    “They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?”

    The CDC is credible. You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    “Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19.”

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    “Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.”

    You mean vacationers from that nation.

    • Replies: @anon
    “They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?”

    The CDC is credible.

    Lol, do you work there or something?

    You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    You do realize that the position was wrong back in March, right?

    “Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19.”

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    No, I'll leave that as homework for you. Try the data here as a starting point:

    https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

    “Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.”

    You mean vacationers from that nation.

    Billionaires and even mere millionaires. are generally regarded as "elite", especially in a country where 40% of the population is poor. Your ignorance of Mexico is obvious.

    Lol @ your weak-sauce trolling.
  58. @DanHessinMD
    "Italy, Spain, South Korea, the UK, America, Belgium, Germany, France, and Holland are all seeing a similar trajectory despite vastly different government approaches at vastly different times."

    South Korea has had a far better trajectory than the others and the difference seems to be mask wearing. I don't like the idea of everyone in America wearing masks, but the data seems to point to that as being the most effective thing.

    I believe South Korea was better prepared primarily due to their constant vigilance of their northern neighbors. South Korea was already equipped for biological warfare with stockpiles of PPE and equipment to combat it. That is also why they have been so far ahead with testing and contact tracing. It could be masks too, but they have a well developed system of testing, discovering hotspots, tracing sources and contacts and quelling outbreaks. Those tactics are basics for biological warfare as well. When we get our testing ramped up and can get proactive contact tracing we will see similar results.
    Bill
    Formerly military with experience in this specific area…

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    No. South Korea was better prepared because a previous administration botched the MERS epidemic and took a lot of flak from the public. So it’s public health institutions were better prepared.
  59. @Daniel Chieh
    Looks like you won't even need to run the firing squads.

    Guillotine, Daniel, please. Have a little respect for civilization, not to mention my comment history.

  60. anon[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?"

    The CDC is credible. You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    "Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19."

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    "Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example."

    You mean vacationers from that nation.

    “They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?”

    The CDC is credible.

    Lol, do you work there or something?

    You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    You do realize that the position was wrong back in March, right?

    “Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19.”

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    No, I’ll leave that as homework for you. Try the data here as a starting point:

    https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

    “Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.”

    You mean vacationers from that nation.

    Billionaires and even mere millionaires. are generally regarded as “elite”, especially in a country where 40% of the population is poor. Your ignorance of Mexico is obvious.

    Lol @ your weak-sauce trolling.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    There is no trolling here. The CDC is credible. Like any government agency, they have their foibles.

    Me--Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?
    You--No, I’ll leave that as homework for you. Try the data here as a starting point...
     
    And, in typical anony fashion (there are so many of you running amok), you make a statement, then either refuse to back it up or give a source that is other than useful. The "homework" is on YOUR end. You were so confident in making that assertion, now provide the relevant numbers.
  61. @DannHessinMD

    “things are very climate-dependent. Mexico and points south are hardly impacted. […] Globally the climatic contours are sharp.”

    Uh, no.

    Ecuador, with bodies piling up in the streets in a coastal city:

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-01/coronavirus-in-guayaquil-ecuador-bodies-in-the-streets

    Philippines – tropical heat and humidity – with the hospitals already at capacity and refusing patients, and famine threatening:

    http://comeandmakeit.blogspot.com/2020/03/manila-corona-virus-april-1-fools.html

    Just as examples. There are more stories if you bother to look, even though the US media is not covering any of it. But if you choose to close your eyes to data you don’t want to see, of course you’re going to see the pattern you want.

    These countries are reporting low numbers of cases because they have been doing low numbers of tests. It is just that simple.

    The humidity theory has been disproven. It has provided essentially zero meaningful protection.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    But if you choose to close your eyes to data you don’t want to see, of course you’re going to see the pattern you want.
     
    This seems to be the MO of most people, here included.

    The humidity theory has been disproven. It has provided essentially zero meaningful protection.
     
    Humidity and temperature may play a role, but at the very margins - obviously behavioral and social patterns matter much more.
    , @DanHessinMD
    vok3 --


    You are clearly incapable of data analysis so I am probably foolish to engage you. However I will try anyway.

    Humidity and warm weather are clearly not the only factor for the coronavirus but they are a major predictor. Is this too hard?

    Most midwits, you included, are incapable of noticing patterns if they can find a single counter example. Midwits are only capable of thinking in black and white and cannot comprehend probability and gradients.

    All the patterns people notice about different groups are false, the midwits tell us, because counter-examples can be found.

    New York is getting utterly wrecked while Florida, where everyone frolicks openly and little was shut down, is hit much less hard. Washington hit much harder than California. Michigan much harder than Texas, Massachusetts is much worse than South Carolina. New York is far worse than Bangkok. But, but, but... Bangkok just had 100 new cases and 3 deaths, see?

    Temperature and humidity matter a great deal, but since the correlation is less than 100%, midwits are at a total loss.

    Life must be very confusing for you. My condolences.

    wok3 -- I honestly don't know what your reading level is, and I don't want to assume too much but maybe you can have a smart friend help you with this:

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

    The pictures might be easier for you to follow than the words, so I suggest starting with pictures 3, 4 and 5.

  62. @vok3
    @DannHessinMD

    "things are very climate-dependent. Mexico and points south are hardly impacted. [...] Globally the climatic contours are sharp."

    Uh, no.

    Ecuador, with bodies piling up in the streets in a coastal city:

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-01/coronavirus-in-guayaquil-ecuador-bodies-in-the-streets

    Philippines - tropical heat and humidity - with the hospitals already at capacity and refusing patients, and famine threatening:

    http://comeandmakeit.blogspot.com/2020/03/manila-corona-virus-april-1-fools.html

    Just as examples. There are more stories if you bother to look, even though the US media is not covering any of it. But if you choose to close your eyes to data you don't want to see, of course you're going to see the pattern you want.

    These countries are reporting low numbers of cases because they have been doing low numbers of tests. It is just that simple.

    The humidity theory has been disproven. It has provided essentially zero meaningful protection.

    But if you choose to close your eyes to data you don’t want to see, of course you’re going to see the pattern you want.

    This seems to be the MO of most people, here included.

    The humidity theory has been disproven. It has provided essentially zero meaningful protection.

    Humidity and temperature may play a role, but at the very margins – obviously behavioral and social patterns matter much more.

  63. @anon
    “They may have changed their credible position on masks since then. Perhaps Coronavinus could check that for us?”

    The CDC is credible.

    Lol, do you work there or something?

    You do realize that positions changed due to new information, right?

    You do realize that the position was wrong back in March, right?

    “Colorado is a hot spot in large part because of the ski industry, similar to the Dolomites in Italy international travel is a major spreader of COVID-19.”

    Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?

    No, I'll leave that as homework for you. Try the data here as a starting point:

    https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

    “Elite Mexicans brought it from Aspen back to Mexico City, for example.”

    You mean vacationers from that nation.

    Billionaires and even mere millionaires. are generally regarded as "elite", especially in a country where 40% of the population is poor. Your ignorance of Mexico is obvious.

    Lol @ your weak-sauce trolling.

    There is no trolling here. The CDC is credible. Like any government agency, they have their foibles.

    Me–Do you have the exact breakdown, i.e. numbers comparing ski and non-ski patients?
    You–No, I’ll leave that as homework for you. Try the data here as a starting point…

    And, in typical anony fashion (there are so many of you running amok), you make a statement, then either refuse to back it up or give a source that is other than useful. The “homework” is on YOUR end. You were so confident in making that assertion, now provide the relevant numbers.

  64. @billyg
    I believe South Korea was better prepared primarily due to their constant vigilance of their northern neighbors. South Korea was already equipped for biological warfare with stockpiles of PPE and equipment to combat it. That is also why they have been so far ahead with testing and contact tracing. It could be masks too, but they have a well developed system of testing, discovering hotspots, tracing sources and contacts and quelling outbreaks. Those tactics are basics for biological warfare as well. When we get our testing ramped up and can get proactive contact tracing we will see similar results.
    Bill
    Formerly military with experience in this specific area...

    No. South Korea was better prepared because a previous administration botched the MERS epidemic and took a lot of flak from the public. So it’s public health institutions were better prepared.

  65. @vok3
    @DannHessinMD

    "things are very climate-dependent. Mexico and points south are hardly impacted. [...] Globally the climatic contours are sharp."

    Uh, no.

    Ecuador, with bodies piling up in the streets in a coastal city:

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-01/coronavirus-in-guayaquil-ecuador-bodies-in-the-streets

    Philippines - tropical heat and humidity - with the hospitals already at capacity and refusing patients, and famine threatening:

    http://comeandmakeit.blogspot.com/2020/03/manila-corona-virus-april-1-fools.html

    Just as examples. There are more stories if you bother to look, even though the US media is not covering any of it. But if you choose to close your eyes to data you don't want to see, of course you're going to see the pattern you want.

    These countries are reporting low numbers of cases because they have been doing low numbers of tests. It is just that simple.

    The humidity theory has been disproven. It has provided essentially zero meaningful protection.

    vok3 —

    You are clearly incapable of data analysis so I am probably foolish to engage you. However I will try anyway.

    Humidity and warm weather are clearly not the only factor for the coronavirus but they are a major predictor. Is this too hard?

    Most midwits, you included, are incapable of noticing patterns if they can find a single counter example. Midwits are only capable of thinking in black and white and cannot comprehend probability and gradients.

    All the patterns people notice about different groups are false, the midwits tell us, because counter-examples can be found.

    New York is getting utterly wrecked while Florida, where everyone frolicks openly and little was shut down, is hit much less hard. Washington hit much harder than California. Michigan much harder than Texas, Massachusetts is much worse than South Carolina. New York is far worse than Bangkok. But, but, but… Bangkok just had 100 new cases and 3 deaths, see?

    Temperature and humidity matter a great deal, but since the correlation is less than 100%, midwits are at a total loss.

    Life must be very confusing for you. My condolences.

    wok3 — I honestly don’t know what your reading level is, and I don’t want to assume too much but maybe you can have a smart friend help you with this:

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

    The pictures might be easier for you to follow than the words, so I suggest starting with pictures 3, 4 and 5.

  66. You mention Florida. You don’t mention New Orleans. You don’t mention all the Florida spring breakers who’ve been proven to be a major vector spreading it all over the place. Etc.

    More generally:

    How to internet argue


    You’re done.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    Vok3 --

    Friend, the scientific explanation of how dry air inhibits respiratory immunity is here for you. I can read it for you, but I cannot understand it for you.

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

    There are 128 citations there. I can't help you with those either. I have read a large share of those studies. I have corresponded with and spoken with several of the authors. I have corresponded extensively with Dr. Iwasaki at Yale and some of her team among others.

    I am sincerely trying to avoid ad-hominem, but you aren't making it easy. You don't seem to understand that humidity can be one of several variables.

    And you seem unwilling to do the work of reading the literature.

    New Orleans, yes -- a million people mobbing the streets during the entire month of February, not a hot and humid time in NO, by the way, and some got sick. Now even though Michigan was far behind Louisiana, it has jumped out ahead and is now adding new cases at twice the rate of Louisiana.

    If you can't do the work of reading the literature or can't make sense of the literature, and if you can't accept that COVID-19 can have more than one correlating variable at the same time, how can there be a discussion?

  67. @vok3
    You mention Florida. You don't mention New Orleans. You don't mention all the Florida spring breakers who've been proven to be a major vector spreading it all over the place. Etc.

    More generally:

    https://imgur.com/a/ypYc2jC
    You're done.

    Vok3 —

    Friend, the scientific explanation of how dry air inhibits respiratory immunity is here for you. I can read it for you, but I cannot understand it for you.

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

    There are 128 citations there. I can’t help you with those either. I have read a large share of those studies. I have corresponded with and spoken with several of the authors. I have corresponded extensively with Dr. Iwasaki at Yale and some of her team among others.

    I am sincerely trying to avoid ad-hominem, but you aren’t making it easy. You don’t seem to understand that humidity can be one of several variables.

    And you seem unwilling to do the work of reading the literature.

    New Orleans, yes — a million people mobbing the streets during the entire month of February, not a hot and humid time in NO, by the way, and some got sick. Now even though Michigan was far behind Louisiana, it has jumped out ahead and is now adding new cases at twice the rate of Louisiana.

    If you can’t do the work of reading the literature or can’t make sense of the literature, and if you can’t accept that COVID-19 can have more than one correlating variable at the same time, how can there be a discussion?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    New Orleans, yes — a million people mobbing the streets during the entire month of February, not a hot and humid time in NO, by the way, and some got sick. Now even though Michigan was far behind Louisiana, it has jumped out ahead and is now adding new cases at twice the rate of Louisiana.
     
    I think a more parsimonious explanation is the enormous power of an exponential process, with the initial cases seeded somewhat haphazardly or even randomly around the country. However, sufficiently fast and competent reactions like in California can then curtail the spread.

    If this explanation is correct, I'd expect much of the South to soon be hit with a tidal wave of cases as a few chance embers reach those pockets of dry tinder.

    Maybe your climatic factors are somewhat important and maybe they're not. Since this isn't Global Warming, I think it makes more sense just to wait a few weeks and find out who seems to have been correct instead of engaging in such angry invective...
  68. “There aren’t any obvious demographic patterns that jump out to me.”

    Are you sure?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Tabs I have open right now:

    https://www.newsbreak.com/michigan/detroit/news/0OdjukOR/black-people-make-up-12-of-michigans-population-and-at-least-40-of-its-coronavirus-deaths
    https://www.propublica.org/article/early-data-shows-african-americans-have-contracted-and-died-of-coronavirus-at-an-alarming-rate

    And then there's this wonderful meme:

    https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/coronachan.jpg
  69. @Ron Unz

    California falls somewhere in the middle. Nothing to write home about.
     
    Well sure, but it's the trend-line...

    Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.

    With the possible exception of Washington State, California was the early national epicenter of the Coronavirus outbreak. It had a multitude of reported cases when some of the current hotspots had none at all. How does "the weather" explain that?

    Yet astonishingly enough, California turned it around because of the very high competence of (at least some) local government officials, in sharp contrast to those in all too many other states and (especially) at the federal level.

    Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if CA comes out of this much better than almost any other large state (maybe TX will be alright) despite having started at the worst point. In fact, the biggest reasonable concern would be hordes of desperate infected refugees pouring into CA from other states that have gotten very bad and restarting the epidemic locally. Fortunately, air travel is down to almost nothing so maybe some sort of 14 day quarantine can be imposed.

    “Unless an exponential process is halted, being out in front by even a couple of weeks produces horrendous results.”

    True. Now, is catabolic collapse an exponential process? Probably not, because there are no exponential processes outside of pure math, but it does have the S curve shape as complexity falls in on itself.

  70. “There aren’t any obvious demographic patterns that jump out to me. ”

    Wild guesses

    BMI?

    Race?

    Average age of cases? (In Germany cases were initially spread among mostly younger people, hence lower deaths.)

    Louisiana deaths per million 2x that of NY, but latter’s cases are 2x that of LA.

    Is a puzzlement. But you are smarter than I am.

  71. @DanHessinMD
    Vok3 --

    Friend, the scientific explanation of how dry air inhibits respiratory immunity is here for you. I can read it for you, but I cannot understand it for you.

    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-virology-012420-022445

    There are 128 citations there. I can't help you with those either. I have read a large share of those studies. I have corresponded with and spoken with several of the authors. I have corresponded extensively with Dr. Iwasaki at Yale and some of her team among others.

    I am sincerely trying to avoid ad-hominem, but you aren't making it easy. You don't seem to understand that humidity can be one of several variables.

    And you seem unwilling to do the work of reading the literature.

    New Orleans, yes -- a million people mobbing the streets during the entire month of February, not a hot and humid time in NO, by the way, and some got sick. Now even though Michigan was far behind Louisiana, it has jumped out ahead and is now adding new cases at twice the rate of Louisiana.

    If you can't do the work of reading the literature or can't make sense of the literature, and if you can't accept that COVID-19 can have more than one correlating variable at the same time, how can there be a discussion?

    New Orleans, yes — a million people mobbing the streets during the entire month of February, not a hot and humid time in NO, by the way, and some got sick. Now even though Michigan was far behind Louisiana, it has jumped out ahead and is now adding new cases at twice the rate of Louisiana.

    I think a more parsimonious explanation is the enormous power of an exponential process, with the initial cases seeded somewhat haphazardly or even randomly around the country. However, sufficiently fast and competent reactions like in California can then curtail the spread.

    If this explanation is correct, I’d expect much of the South to soon be hit with a tidal wave of cases as a few chance embers reach those pockets of dry tinder.

    Maybe your climatic factors are somewhat important and maybe they’re not. Since this isn’t Global Warming, I think it makes more sense just to wait a few weeks and find out who seems to have been correct instead of engaging in such angry invective…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS