- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
26 Mar 20
9 edits
@eladar saidRefer to the paper you sighted: Page 7 Figure A.
So do we know if the Curve is being flattened or not? What does the Curve look like if no measures were taken?
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
We are somewhere in between the first two tick marks on that graph.
I think we can approximate f(t) right now because we are so early in this ( the population is basically constant at this point ) by solving the following:
(320 x 10^6)*10^5 * t*f(t) = 1027( deaths as of 25th) - 780( deaths as of 24th)
t = 6 ( from the origin of the graph - March 20th ) so f(t) is basically 0 at this time.
And that agrees with the graph quite well, so seems too soon at this point to say.
26 Mar 20
@eladar saidThere's a widget on the below New York Times article you can play with a slider that let's you vary the length of time people have to stay at home and practice these precautions. By doing this you can get a handle on what the curve will look like, what will happen with hospitalisations and how many will die.
So do we know if the Curve is being flattened or not? What does the Curve look like if no measures were taken?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coronavirus-trump-reopen-america.html?fbclid=IwAR1iP1k7gG8ESTAeALvmNCI0oyGnxAZrmU_4uOrI7EgCqQnxNaVeyFlQG9s
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
26 Mar 20
@deepthought saidI think that only works if you are a subscriber.
There's a widget on the below New York Times article you can play with a slider that let's you vary the length of time people have to stay at home and practice these precautions. By doing this you can get a handle on what the curve will look like, what will happen with hospitalisations and how many will die.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coron ...[text shortened]... virus-trump-reopen-america.html?fbclid=IwAR1iP1k7gG8ESTAeALvmNCI0oyGnxAZrmU_4uOrI7EgCqQnxNaVeyFlQG9s
26 Mar 20
@deepthought saidIs that like the global warming models we had in the late 90's and early 2000's?
There's a widget on the below New York Times article you can play with a slider that let's you vary the length of time people have to stay at home and practice these precautions. By doing this you can get a handle on what the curve will look like, what will happen with hospitalisations and how many will die.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/25/opinion/coron ...[text shortened]... virus-trump-reopen-america.html?fbclid=IwAR1iP1k7gG8ESTAeALvmNCI0oyGnxAZrmU_4uOrI7EgCqQnxNaVeyFlQG9s
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
26 Mar 20
@joe-shmo saidEDIT to Above Post: Please, just ignore this for now, I'm goofing it up...
Refer to the paper you sighted: Page 7 Figure A.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
We are somewhere in between the first two tick marks on that graph.
I think we can approximate f(t) right now because we are so early in this ( the population is basically constant ...[text shortened]... at this time.
And that agrees with the graph quite well, so seems too soon at this point to say.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
26 Mar 20
@sonhouse saidIts going to be a logistic curve, but my regression has been failing as I add more data ( I don't know why at this time ). The last time a model worked it predicted IP of March 31, 2300 Deaths. Because the model is now failing after adding more data, I wouldn't count on its accuracy.
@joe-shmo
Any prediction as to inflection point? I assume you were right that it is a logistic curve.
27 Mar 20
1 edit
@sonhouse saidIt definitely will.
@joe-shmo
Well the death count is 1100 now so 2300 is only a bit over twice, and we have 5 days, it may get WORSE than 2300.
Since 60k is a top end flu season, what kind of number would be needed to say this is much worse than any flu season?
90k would be a 50 percent above. How about 120k?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
27 Mar 20
@eladar saidI don't think we can look at it quite like that. We don't mitigate the Flu by shutting down the country.
It definitely will.
Since 60k is a top end flu season, what kind of number would be needed to say this is much worse than any flu season?
90k would be a 50 percent above. How about 120k?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
27 Mar 20
3 edits
@eladar saidRight Now, I would say none. In the future I would suspect many lives will be saved.
Which begs the question, how many lives are actually being saved by forced shut downs?
Do you see your circular reasoning here?
Its my understanding the primary objective with mitigation was not to contain the virus, containment was a forgone conclusion.
The "life savings" comes from slowing the spread so that hospitals maintain the ability to treat. So long as we don't crash the economy and have people out in droves begging for food, that strategy seems logical. I think that is the big question, where is the tipping point. I suspect it will be decided to soon to protect corporate interests, but all in all its basically a "lose-lose less" scenario either way.
27 Mar 20
@joe-shmo
I disagree about the slowing. The general timeline for this thing was guessed. If you can slow down its growth by about a week, then you max out deaths with one fewer week of exponential growth.
But yeah it also slows growth at the moment buying time to get medical supplies and ventilator production going, something that should have been done about 3 months ago.
If CEO's knew enough to quit their job months ago, the government knew too.