Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
gianmarco
Footballguy
Here is a recent link
Estimated at less than 1 in 10. And this is based on a large study looking at actual antibodies present. This is consistent with other reporting as well.
So, while it's certainly higher than what's reported, it's not even close to your claim of 25% of the population.
gobrowns33
Footballguy
gobrowns33
Footballguy
per gianmarco, studies say 10%, so if my math is right, 32 million is closer to 80 million than 8 million....
gianmarco
Footballguy
Mine wasn't the original post you quoted so I'm not posting misinformation.
BF's point remains the same and you can change his 97% to over 90%. It's FAR more accurate than yours and is at least based on reported numbers, not some random number you pulled out of thin air.
gobrowns33
Footballguy
No worries, I never meant you posted misinformation...I was just making the point that my 80 million number was a reply to a post (not yours) with inacurate/made up statistics.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Your math isn't right. At all. Are you serious? And it's LESS than 10%.
You should read the article.
Last edited by a moderator:
gobrowns33
Footballguy
Yup...to go from 8mil to 32mil is a 400% increase...to go from 32mil to 80mil is only a 250% increase, so an easier more plausible jump. ie 400% off vs 250% off.
Battersbox
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
Yep, this is consistent around the world. The article I linked is based on a study estimating between 8-9% here.
Either way, no where close to the threshold for herd immunity and that means the vast majority of the population (over 90%) is still at risk.
gianmarco
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
Something I just found out about my job, here in NYC (strictly anecdotal):
I work in a busy Manhattan restaurant. Ownership is fairly conservative, not Kool-Aid drinkers, but ain't trying to hear my crap on Trump either. Staff is late 20's, early 30's, and by last January were sick of politics, and had tuned pretty much any news involving Trump completely out.
So, by March, you had a whole bunch of people who ignored Covid completely. And me.
By the first week of March, I was making gentlemen bets that we weren't gonna make it to April, and most people I knew in restaurants didn't think this was going to affect us. I get it, I mean, how often does a pandemic close down a city of 10 million? Hard to believe it could happen.
Speaking to everyone after we reopened, they all caught it, and weren't tested, and are not on the official rolls. Pretty much every person in front of house I worked with lost sense of smell and taste, for 10-14 days, some had worse symptoms. It was prevalent enough that they are shocked that I did NOT catch it.
At that time, there was no testing, no one was encouraging anyone to go to the hospitals till you were really sick. They had roommates, and most of their apartments, everyone had it. I'm only aware of two people in any of their orbits that had to seek medical attention.
I would estimate that within one degree of separation to my work life, about 30 people had Covid, and were not in any official cases. Conservative estimate.
Battersbox
Footballguy
This is only true if you completely disregard the arguments about T-cell cross immunity.
gobrowns33
Footballguy
It is basic statistic...4x vice 2.5x...not sure your confusion or what I did wrong???
bostonfred
Footballguy
Let's assume that's true. We'll see if the most optimistic projections for the pro herd crowd make a Lets Go Herd strategy make sense.
80 million cases is nearly 25 percent of the country. Which is still nowhere near herd immunity. Estimates for herd immunity range between 70 and 90 percent of the population- at 70 percent, you see a reduction in case transmission, and at 90 you see near immunity with some sporadic cases. If 80 million people had been infected, and about 250 milliom had not, then over 75 percent of the country will not have had it yet. The odds of you getting someone else sick have not gone down significantly enough to slow transmission, let alone stop it.
Let's also assume the most optimistic case that people who have been sick can't get it again. That is currently in doubt. If people can get sick again, then herd immunity simply doesn't exist without a cure or effective vaccine. For the sake of argument, we'll assume you can't get covid twice.
Next, who are the 80 million people who have gotten sick, and who are the 250 million uninfected? Let's take the US population and measure them on two things- most likely to get infected, and most at-risk. If we split those up, we'll see that the people who are most at risk are usually also least likely to get infected, because they are taking every precaution right now. And the people who are most likely to get infected are the people who were least at risk, because healthy 25 year olds are less likely to have stayed quarantined since March. Not all of the high likelihood people have been infected, but a lot more than the low likelihood crowd.
The least likely to be infected, on the other hand, are the people in rural areas with few cases, people who have been working from home and taking maximum precautions, and people who have no choice but to take precautions because they or a loved one are severely immunocompromised.
In other words, there are some people who are at high risk and havent been taking precautions, and low risk who have been taking precautions, but mostly you will see that the highest risk people have been taking the most precautions and the lowest risk people the fewest.
If 80 million people have been sick, but only 8 million know it, then 72 million people have been sick and don't know it. That's great, right? Because those people might not be able to get it again!
Except that there are over 300 million people in the US, and we don't know which 72 million have been sick. If we could find out exactly which people were immune, then we could open things up for them. But we don't know that. So all the moderate risk people are out walking around, getting each other sick, and continuing to spread this virus towards the goal of herd immunity.
Unfortunately, that means that the death rates will likely go up. Because the highest risk people haven't been going out, and they are now more likely to die or get seriously ill.
Meanwhile, the most reckless people are less likely to wear masks to protect them, because individually, they see themselves as very low risk - they might already have had this, and even if they haven't, they're young and healthy and not aware of any preexisting conditions that put them at higher risk.
Do you see why this is a nightmare?
Battersbox
Footballguy
Also, regarding Sweden, I'm still in the camp that thinks they're doing just fine. Tegnell admitted early on they were caught flat-footed and didn't protect the vulnerable in the early days of this. But, I don't understand how anyone can look at a chart of their death curve from the past 4-5 months and say with authority their approach is not working since April.
Also, there are reports their economy has in fact fared better than the EU. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354#:~:text=Sweden%2C which avoided a lockdown,nations which took stricter measures.
Also, there are reports their economy has in fact fared better than the EU. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354#:~:text=Sweden%2C which avoided a lockdown,nations which took stricter measures.
gobrowns33
Footballguy
I agree...herd immunity is not really an option at this point...I feel for the high risk people and know some of them (some take precautions, some don't take any...). I haven't done much different (wear my mask in public when not distanced)...but I have also been in South Korea through most of this.
Battersbox
Footballguy
All of this sucks, but there is probably a factor you're leaving out, which is that the virus culls the most susceptible first, thereby leaving those who are less at-risk as not infected yet. Isn't that how all viruses work? And, I'm not sure you can say with authority that the most high-risk have been taking precautions. There isn't much basis for that. High risk is primarily the elderly, and I think a great proportion of them have been perfectly willing to live their lives and not worry in their day-to-day lives. Especially those who don't live anywhere near major urban epicenters which have already seen large outbreaks.
Battersbox
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
That's nice, except scroll down for daily deaths in Finland. And in Norway. And in Denmark. Just as low or lower.
But in Sweden, daily cases on the rise (just like the others above). Look over the last ~4 weeks. I don't expect that death total to remain that flat over the next month. We shall see as cases are going up all over Europe.
So, what exactly have they gained by losing so many to start while not saving the economy in the process?
beer 30
Footballguy
Early voted yesterday in SC, was happy to see a long line and everyone wearing a mask save two die hards that I assume put one on to enter the building. Probably 25-30 people in line for about an hour. Inside, very orderly path in and around to vote, once you received your ballot, you were the only person to touch it. Used Q-tips to push buttons on the machine. Seemed well organized but if there is an hour long line in the middle of the day on an arbitrary day of the week when the Nov 3rd does arrive, it's going to be to a long day for the poll workers.
Be patient folks
Be patient folks
gianmarco
Footballguy
They fared better compared to the hardest hit countries like Italy, France, Germany, and Spain who also have much more robust economies.
Compared to their neighbors that are much more similar, they fared worse than Norway, Denmark, and Finland. You can see from my link I already posted above.
culdeus
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
When you say there isn't much basis that "a great proportion" of the elderly "have been perfectly willing to live their lives", do you have any basis to believe that the elderly are taking fewer precautions than young workers?
I think it's pretty self evident that they are taking the same or more precautions. If you want to point to the elderly in rural areas, then compare them with the non elderly in the same areas. Even just compare the likelihood that they work 9 to 5 jobs, commute to work, go to the grocery store later in the day or during peak after-work hours.
And while you said that "high risk is primarily the elderly" you're people ignoring people with cancer, overweight/obese people, people with asthma, and other preexisting conditions.
But it also includes fully healthy people who have a child with asthma, or a husband with cancer, or their elderly mother in their house.
Those people are, on average, taking fewer risks than the average person. Which means a greater proportion of them has not yet been infected.
These don't seem like controversial statements to me. I am willing to look at any data you have that supports your notion that the most at risk people are going out at an equal or higher rate to their lower risk counterparts but I sincerely doubt it exists.
And if a greater proportion of at risk people is left in the not yet infected pile, then the risk of death will necessarily be higher for the people who have not yet been infected than for the 8 million, 32 million, or even 80 million people you suspect have been sick.
Any progress towards herd immunity will mean that those people are exposed (or quarantined indefinitely).
Herd immunity is not a viable strategy.
culdeus
Footballguy
@bostonfredI don't think the asthma thing is proven out. Though I get the point you are making above. I think most of the risk is some function of Age and BMI, the remaining pre-existing conditions are more or less noise or have hazard ratios you can't measure with out a few leading 0s.
I don't mean to nitpick but I see your post as part of the problem, people don't really understand who is at risk, and this has not been communicated clearly at the US level for sure.
I don't mean to nitpick but I see your post as part of the problem, people don't really understand who is at risk, and this has not been communicated clearly at the US level for sure.
Battersbox
Footballguy
What have they gained? An economy that could have been far worse. Kids that are holding on to a more normal existence. A populace that has remained happier and mentally healthier than it would otherwise be. There are trade offs, surely you agree with that? Also, by any definition, they have to have more immunity now than they otherwise would have had if they'd been stricter from say May to October. That is a good thing.
And yes, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are lower. They did a fabulous job. But, those countries are not the only valid comparisons, just convenient ones.
Battersbox
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Battersbox
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Battersbox
Footballguy
But in actual practice, many (most?) of our kids are at home, while in Sweden they are in school.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Also, vast swaths of our country have had greater restrictions on dining/entertainment than what Sweden has imposed.
culdeus
Footballguy
Splitting hairs, but we are just like Sweden. If your local area doesn't put kids in seats, that's on them. You have far more power at the local level than to petition the federal government.
If you really want kids back, go sit in the board meetings and local city meetings. The overwhelming pressure of involved parents get kids back, the ones that DGAF will let kids stay remote. JMO.
Battersbox
Footballguy
I wish that were true. You don't live under Pritzker and the Illinois Democratic regime. Not to mention, parents are scared and I really don't blame them considering the headlines they've been reading for 7 months.
I agree with you that Federally we are like Sweden in our approach, but it doesn't really matter because we live in individual states.
culdeus
Footballguy
Then pick the most Sweeden like states and compare to the ones that are less like Sweeden.
I imagine the unemployment rate, tax receipts, foreclosures and things are indistinguishable across the different state policies, and like in Europe the infection rate and economic ruin are independent. That this disease is more or less driven by personal responsibility.
Battersbox
Footballguy
I'm in agreement that personal responsibility is a huge component that isn't spoken of enough. But are you saying that Swedes are just far more responsible than Brits, for example? Are you saying that despite measures taken by various Federal gov'tments, the results would be the same regardless? If the U.K. and Sweden exactly flipped their approach to the other's, the infections and deaths would be virtually the same as they are now?
belljr
Footballguy
Long article on how Swedes were more likely to conform to the restrictions sweden did put in place (gathering limits) and many stayed home
Pretty decent read
Culture of Comformity
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2020/10/19/has-sweden-s-coronavirus-strategy-helped-it-avoid-pandemic-fatigue
Battersbox
Footballguy
Good read, ty. Again, I could be wrong, but that also bolsters my opinion that the Swedes are doing things correctly. Just my opinion.
bostonfred
Footballguy
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
People with asthma MAY BE at higher risk, and ARE more likely to have been taking extra precautions because they don't know whether they're at higher risk.
culdeus
Footballguy
The problem is people are taking the culture of sweeden to = their government intervention and extrapolating it to the US where we have people just foaming at the mouth to post the latest little tidbit that masks don't work.
culdeus
Footballguy
The problem is people are taking the culture of sweeden to = their government intervention and extrapolating it to the US where we have people just foaming at the mouth to post the latest little tidbit that masks don't work.
culdeus
Footballguy
Reasons to doubt this:
Noting that this is adult asthmatics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7295471/
Again, adults
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.02.20205724v1
One reason why you might not see many children studies, is simply they are going to have issues getting enough enrollment.
There is growing evidence that risk factors are independent of breathing issues, notably that smoking would appear to have at times a protective quality to it, despite such an assertion being absurd in this context, yet it keeps showing up in the literature as protective.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20057794v1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28947454
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3543584
This thing really boils down to. Are you old? Are you fat? Are you fat and old? Teasing out any other risks hasn't shown anything useful for behavior changes.
bostonfred
Footballguy
@culdeus you are making a point I'm not rebutting. I stand by what I said in the context of the post you responded to, which is that people with asthma and other conditions MAY BE at higher risk, and ARE more likely to have been taking precautions, so the total population of people taking higher precautions will generally be at the same or higher risk than the population who haven't.
I also appreciate the work you're putting in to explain the currently known risk factors. It may end up that the only meaningful factors are age and weight. I suspect that those will not be the only factors when all is said and done, and that's not the current guidance, but it may end up being the case.
No need to continue.
I also appreciate the work you're putting in to explain the currently known risk factors. It may end up that the only meaningful factors are age and weight. I suspect that those will not be the only factors when all is said and done, and that's not the current guidance, but it may end up being the case.
No need to continue.
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
Sadly, I am old and fat...
Pipes
Footballguy
This is false in my neck of the woods. Dane County Wisconsin where approximately 80% of the parents want their children back in school. Despite long, heated school board meetings in a bunch of county school districts, all our schools are remote. I'm talking screaming, parents crying, etc...it's ugly around here. The parents have no say at least around here.
Last edited by a moderator:
culdeus
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Sure. But even if it were 80 million (unlikely, given seroprevalence studies from around the world), we still have quite a wat to go until the herd immunity threshold of 50-70%+ of the population. With treatment improving and a vaccine reportedly a few months away, why risk more deaths by pushing for natural immunity?gobrowns33 said:
beer 30
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
OK. So 32 million in 8+ Months. Given those numbers, how long would you expect herd immunity to take if we ease restrictions? Do you not expect a vaccine to be developed in that period?gobrowns33 said:
