Are you personally worried about getting the Coronavirus?

Are you personally worried about catching the Coronavirus?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.0%

  • No

    Votes: 59 59.0%
  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
ssckelley said:
The Cardinals should give that a try.

Here is another one of their "sell out" crowds.

5accac6b93fc9.image.jpg
Click to expand...
LOSER!!
 
Non lockdown, non social distance areas for comparison: There are examples to show what this virus could do unchecked.

What have we seen in situations where mitigation measures are not nearly as possible especially with a virus that doctors say is dramatically different as it can be spread by people early on without symptoms or who never get symptoms.

1. The aircraft carrier T Roosevelt with a compliment of about 5000 naval personnel now has about or just over 600 sailors positive with covid. That is a 12% infection rate in a couple of weeks where sailors are in close quarters.

As Retired 4 Star Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, said today this shows that if people are left to be in close proximity they contract the disease fast and at a high rate. He said it would be like having 35 million americans with it right now (and it might be 5 million anyway).

When asked during an interview what he would do if in charge, Stavridis also said that we need a very high level of testing now and it was needed in the past to know where you are and what you can do. He says in military planning you need intel and data to assess the situation and make plans.

2. Nursing homes where we have all heard and read the reports that when the virus gets into the buildings it spreads to many before anyone even knows it is there. And there have been several of these major hotspots in Iowa.

3. And of course Wuhan and Italy before lockdowns etc. And one might say in the future and are already talking about the few days difference between California and New York state.
 
There has been some discussion of models of COVID spread and the predictions from these models. I found the following to be an interesting tweet from a scientist actively involved in modeling:


In short, scientists don't make models because they expect these to accurately predict the future. The point is to create numerous models to get a sense of how certain variables will influence the outcome. The expectation is not that the model predicts the future, the expectation is that the models give us a better understanding of the potential effects of certain underlying variables.

So if a model predicts 100,000 deaths (the range was probably 30,000 - 500,000), and the actual # of deaths is 20,000, the general population gets up and arms and says the scientists don't know what they are doing. The scientists don't sweat it because they were not trying to predict the future, just trying to get a better understanding of the factors that matter most.

In that sense, the final predictions of these models probably should not even be reported in the media, or at the least, the entire range should be reported, not just the most likely value. But of course the predicted final numbers are the juiciest bits, even if they are not the most important point of the model.
 
uihawk82 said:
Non lockdown, non social distance areas for comparison: There are examples to show what this virus could do unchecked.

What have we seen in situations where mitigation measures are not nearly as possible especially with a virus that doctors say is dramatically different as it can be spread by people early on without symptoms or who never get symptoms.

1. The aircraft carrier T Roosevelt with a compliment of about 5000 naval personnel now has about or just over 600 sailors positive with covid. That is a 12% infection rate in a couple of weeks where sailors are in close quarters.

As Retired 4 Star Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, said today this shows that if people are left to be in close proximity they contract the disease fast and at a high rate. He said it would be like having 35 million americans with it right now (and it might be 5 million anyway).

When asked during an interview what he would do if in charge, Stavridis also said that we need a very high level of testing now and it was needed in the past to know where you are and what you can do. He says in military planning you need intel and data to assess the situation and make plans.

2. Nursing homes where we have all heard and read the reports that when the virus gets into the buildings it spreads to many before anyone even knows it is there. And there have been several of these major hotspots in Iowa.

3. And of course Wuhan and Italy before lockdowns etc. And one might say in the future and are already talking about the few days difference between California and New York state.
Click to expand...


You guys seriously still going around-and-around about this?
 
CP87 said:
There has been some discussion of models of COVID spread and the predictions from these models. I found the following to be an interesting tweet from a scientist actively involved in modeling:


In short, scientists don't make models because they expect these to accurately predict the future. The point is to create numerous models to get a sense of how certain variables will influence the outcome. The expectation is not that the model predicts the future, the expectation is that the models give us a better understanding of the potential effects of certain underlying variables.

So if a model predicts 100,000 deaths (the range was probably 30,000 - 500,000), and the actual # of deaths is 20,000, the general population gets up and arms and says the scientists don't know what they are doing. The scientists don't sweat it because they were not trying to predict the future, just trying to get a better understanding of the factors that matter most.

In that sense, the final predictions of these models probably should not even be reported in the media, or at the least, the entire range should be reported, not just the most likely value. But of course the predicted final numbers are the juiciest bits, even if they are not the most important point of the model.
Click to expand...

Very good description in the first paragraph. Political polls are just models of political science research. They give plus or minus ranges. The virus modelers have been giving ranges , some big ranges, but a lot of the general public as you say do not understand this and want some exact answer all the time right now.

But some models are quite good at predicting outcomes and they are mostly in the physical sciences of physics and chemistry. Newton's Theory of gravity and other thinkers of his time came up with the equation that the force of gravity is inversely related to the square of the distance and directly related to the mass of the objects. These are variables that can be much better known and controlled in a model or equation. And all the NASA scientists and engineers did just that because the knew the mass of the Earth and the Moon and could get accurate distance from Apollo spacecraft to these orbs. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics are very much the same as we know the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and their other characteristics.

A lot more variables and unknowns with viral models especially how humans will react socially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top