Coronavirus COVID-19

[BDKJMU]

It did start in November.

Link

US spy agencies were tracking the rise of the novel coronavirus as early as November, weeks before that information was included in President Donald Trump's daily intelligence briefing, a former US military official told CNN.

While the exact date of the first report remains unclear, sources told CNN that intelligence gathered in November and in the weeks following offered multiple early warnings about the potential severity of the pandemic now surging in the US.

Yes, it probably did start in Nov, not December like the WHO said (because their CPC pimp doctors told them so). However, the rest sounds like BS.

1st of all:

"As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists," Colonel Dr. R. Shane Day, director of the National Center for Medical Intelligence, said.

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Hyten seemed to push back on reports that the US intelligence community was aware of the coronavirus in November, saying Thursday that the first intelligence reports he saw were in January.
Asked when the first intelligence streams about the virus began to arrive, Hyten said, "We went back and looked at everything in November, December. The first indication we have were the reports out of China in late December that were in the public forum. And the first intel reports I saw were in January.

Secondly, ABC fails to name the person they allegedly got this info from.

Sounds like Fake News.

[CAA Flagship]

Yup. I got one. We were looking forward to his final season of organized baseball. Little did we know that it took place last year. It is what it is. I'm just thankful that I didn't pull the trigger on a $400+ bat for the season.

I never buy the expensive bats - my kids are already conditioned to getting by with the $100 bats. I did buy my oldest cleats for the year (something like $80) since he had high school baseball that started earlier, but luckily I hadn't bought anything for the younger two and I hadn't bought any track cleats for my middle one (he's a pretty good long distance runner). He'll miss his last year of CYO track now as a result, but we do remember him running and anchoring the 4x800 team that won the archdioceses last year at Franklin Field so that's a cool memory to be the last race he ran in CYO (that's some real shameless Dad bragging there).

My son had his eye on a couple of bats but wanted to see what other guys on the team had and see how willing they were to share it (provided it was the right size/weight for him). After the two weeks of practice he had, it looked like he was going to be able to use at least two players' bats.

[Ibanez]

The toll could be less if Trump had gotten out of his way and taken it seriously before it was a problem.

Is it Monday morning already?

Isn't it always Monday morning on CS?

[GannonFan]

I never buy the expensive bats - my kids are already conditioned to getting by with the $100 bats. I did buy my oldest cleats for the year (something like $80) since he had high school baseball that started earlier, but luckily I hadn't bought anything for the younger two and I hadn't bought any track cleats for my middle one (he's a pretty good long distance runner). He'll miss his last year of CYO track now as a result, but we do remember him running and anchoring the 4x800 team that won the archdioceses last year at Franklin Field so that's a cool memory to be the last race he ran in CYO (that's some real shameless Dad bragging there).

My son had his eye on a couple of bats but wanted to see what other guys on the team had and see how willing they were to share it (provided it was the right size/weight for him). After the two weeks of practice he had, it looked like he was going to be able to use at least two players' bats.

Yup, mine do the same. I think it teaches them a valuable lesson in life - how to mooch off of people who spend way too much on their own sporting equipment.

[AZGrizFan]

If you're going to pin the bad on him, you have to pin the good too.

Unless you're a selective partisan twat of course.

66,000 Americans dead is GOOD?

Damn, you cultists like moving the goal posts. Still stuck on 4 dead in Benghazi, but 66K dead Americans is a victory.

Trump fucked this up royally. From the beginning. And he is STILL fucking it up. Anything that is happening is IN SPITE of how idiotic he and Jared are.

The only way they get this thing to 66,000 is if they count everybody who sneezes on their deathbed as a corona virus victim....

And they will. Count on it.

[kalm]

66,000 Americans dead is GOOD?

Damn, you cultists like moving the goal posts. Still stuck on 4 dead in Benghazi, but 66K dead Americans is a victory.

Trump fucked this up royally. From the beginning. And he is STILL fucking it up. Anything that is happening is IN SPITE of how idiotic he and Jared are.

60,415 according to the IHME/Univ Washington model. In a country of 329+, million 60K is about 1 in every 5,500 people in the US. .00018%.
And at the rate they keep revising this downward, it likely to be more like 50k, just like I predicted on the Death Pool thread. The modelers were saying at 1st 2.2 million.

THANK YOU TRUMP.

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

[GannonFan]

60,415 according to the IHME/Univ Washington model. In a country of 329+, million 60K is about 1 in every 5,500 people in the US. .00018%.
And at the rate they keep revising this downward, it likely to be more like 50k, just like I predicted on the Death Pool thread. The modelers were saying at 1st 2.2 million.

THANK YOU TRUMP.

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

Does someone need to inject the "correlation does not imply causation" phrase into this discussion at this point? Asking for a friend.

[kalm]

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

Does someone need to inject the "correlation does not imply causation" phrase into this discussion at this point? Asking for a friend.

Please explain....

[GannonFan]

Does someone need to inject the "correlation does not imply causation" phrase into this discussion at this point? Asking for a friend.

Please explain....

Yes, I'm sure that concept eludes you.

[BDKJMU]

60,415 according to the IHME/Univ Washington model. In a country of 329+, million 60K is about 1 in every 5,500 people in the US. .00018%.
And at the rate they keep revising this downward, it likely to be more like 50k, just like I predicted on the Death Pool thread. The modelers were saying at 1st 2.2 million.

THANK YOU TRUMP.

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

[Silenoz]

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

Uh, you DO do that...

"Oh shit, we're already down 0-21. But I'm standing by that 56-7 ass-kicking I think we're gonna deliver"

[kalm]

Please explain....

Yes, I'm sure that concept eludes you.

It probably does so please explain where my post was incorrect applying causation v. correlation.

[kalm]

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

Jesus....

Because injuries, weather, bad calls, and upsets don’t exist....

[BDKJMU]

Immunity to the virus is completely different from the disease’s mortality rate

King of All Blacks on the Howard Stern Show is claiming that blacks are immune.

Until I see proof that a negro has died of it, I believe him.

Well, that didn't age well.
42% of those killed by COVID-19 in U.S. are black, analysis of available data shows
https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/42-of ... ata-shows/

[93henfan]

King of All Blacks on the Howard Stern Show is claiming that blacks are immune.

Until I see proof that a negro has died of it, I believe him.

Well, that didn't age well.
42% of those killed by COVID-19 in U.S. are black, analysis of available data shows
https://ktla.com/news/coronavirus/42-of ... ata-shows/

Yeah, we covered that a LONG time ago.

PS. Also, it was comedy.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

Jesus....

Because injuries, weather, bad calls, and upsets don’t exist....

......and Oh, Those Turnovers.

[kalm]

Jesus....

Because injuries, weather, bad calls, and upsets don’t exist....

......and Oh, Those Turnovers.

[BDKJMU]

Worldometer:
NY Deaths: 7067.
Rest of the US: 9582.

NY has more Chinese Virus deaths than about the bottom 38 states combined.

[JohnStOnge]

You do understand the idea of predictive modeling based on current trend lines and the influence resulting policy has on their accuracy, right?

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

If you had everybody try to predict a set of games at the beginning of the season then let them change the predictions for the remaining games each week you'd see that sort of thing happen.

I still say that Trump and his people did that 100,000 to 200,000 stuff early on in order to be able to come back later and claim they did better than expected. What I was seeing at that time in the only completely referenced model I could see is that the credibility interval was anywhere from around 30,000 to 140,000. I never did see precise information on where that 100,000 to 200,000 came from.

What's happened now with the University of Washington model is that it went from predicting about 30,000 to about 140,000 to predicting about 31,000 to 127,000. It's not that big a change. People need to look at the credibility interval and not the point estimate.

The original model will have been "correct" if the final figure ends up in the 30,000 to 140,000 range. Also, you will have to wait to see what CDC estimates are before deciding how the model did. What we are seeing now is a count of definite confirmed cases. As is the case with the flu, the CDC will estimate the death toll to account for under-reporting and for situations in which COVID-19 was a factor in death but the death is listed as being from some other proximate cause.

[JohnStOnge]

It's was widely reported this morning that most of the COVID-19 cases in New York originated with travelers from Europe. There are plenty of articles on it but here is one: https://www.businessinsider.com/new-yor ... ope-2020-4.

That scenario is consistent with one of the reasons I've seen given for why doing something like what Trump did with his China travel "ban" is not particularly effective. The idea is that by the time one does something like that the pathogen is already widespread.

As far as I can tell, the pre-existing received wisdom was that travel restrictions are not what leaders should be focusing on when they see something like this emerging. They should, instead, be focusing on limiting community spread within their own jurisdiction. Here is a discussion of the relative importance of travel restrictions from a conservative source (CATO Institute):

https://www.cato.org/blog/travel-restri ... search-say

Some quotes:

"The most important finding of the Science article is that reducing transmissibility does more to slow the spread of COVID-19 than travel restrictions. A 90 percent reduction in travel merely reduces one node in a travel network whereby COVID-19 spread. By lowering transmissibility across the world, even if only by 25 percent, the spread of COVID-19 through every node in that network is reduced greatly."

"Third, the travel ban created a false sense of security that delayed other more effective methods of containing COVID-19, such as instituting social distancing sooner. In other words, the travel ban was always an ineffective policy that substituted for more effective ones like those adopted in Singapore. Other methods of reducing COVID-19 transmission are effective. To the extent that travel restrictions substituted for those policies, as they likely did in the United States, it likely undid any benefits by delaying other actions."


South Korea has been held out as an example of enjoying reasonable success by doing that sort of thing in this case:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... thing-down

As I've written before, it's also important to note that when Trump said he shut travel from China down he is exaggerating the situation. He restricted it. Reports are that about 40,000 people have traveled to the United States from China since we implemented the restriction:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/c ... tions.html

The bottom line is this: Trump screwed up. What he did is exactly the problem described in the second quoted paragraph from the CATO piece. He did his travel restriction then acted like the problem was solved. And it's important to remember that the information telling him that it would likely NOT be sufficient existed. The literature review I have linked before was published in 2014. If he did not know better than to handle it the way he did, he SHOULD have. Surely SOMEBODY in his Administration knew.

[Pwns]

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

If you had everybody try to predict a set of games at the beginning of the season then let them change the predictions for the remaining games each week you'd see that sort of thing happen.

I still say that Trump and his people did that 100,000 to 200,000 stuff early on in order to be able to come back later and claim they did better than expected. What I was seeing at that time in the only completely referenced model I could see is that the credibility interval was anywhere from around 30,000 to 140,000. I never did see precise information on where that 100,000 to 200,000 came from.

What's happened now with the University of Washington model is that it went from predicting about 30,000 to about 140,000 to predicting about 31,000 to 127,000. It's not that big a change. People need to look at the credibility interval and not the point estimate.

The original model will have been "correct" if the final figure ends up in the 30,000 to 140,000 range. Also, you will have to wait to see what CDC estimates are before deciding how the model did. What we are seeing now is a count of definite confirmed cases. As is the case with the flu, the CDC will estimate the death toll to account for under-reporting and for situations in which COVID-19 was a factor in death but the death is listed as being from some other proximate cause.

Sanjay Gupta on CNN a week ago said 200k deaths was "optimistic". The original Imperial College report predicted 500k US deaths a month ago with social distancing.

Now I didn't believe them to begin with so I'm not gonna pat Trump on the back but it's not just numbers the White House made up.

[JohnStOnge]

66,000 Americans dead is GOOD?

Damn, you cultists like moving the goal posts. Still stuck on 4 dead in Benghazi, but 66K dead Americans is a victory.

Trump fucked this up royally. From the beginning. And he is STILL fucking it up. Anything that is happening is IN SPITE of how idiotic he and Jared are.

The only way they get this thing to 66,000 is if they count everybody who sneezes on their deathbed as a corona virus victim....

And they will. Count on it.

What the CDC is going to do unless they are absolutely are forced to do otherwise is handle this the same way as they handle everything else (like the seasonal flu). And if they do that it's probably going to be over 66,000.

[JohnStOnge]

If you had everybody try to predict a set of games at the beginning of the season then let them change the predictions for the remaining games each week you'd see that sort of thing happen.

I still say that Trump and his people did that 100,000 to 200,000 stuff early on in order to be able to come back later and claim they did better than expected. What I was seeing at that time in the only completely referenced model I could see is that the credibility interval was anywhere from around 30,000 to 140,000. I never did see precise information on where that 100,000 to 200,000 came from.

What's happened now with the University of Washington model is that it went from predicting about 30,000 to about 140,000 to predicting about 31,000 to 127,000. It's not that big a change. People need to look at the credibility interval and not the point estimate.

The original model will have been "correct" if the final figure ends up in the 30,000 to 140,000 range. Also, you will have to wait to see what CDC estimates are before deciding how the model did. What we are seeing now is a count of definite confirmed cases. As is the case with the flu, the CDC will estimate the death toll to account for under-reporting and for situations in which COVID-19 was a factor in death but the death is listed as being from some other proximate cause.

Sanjay Gupta on CNN a week ago said 200k deaths was "optimistic". The original Imperial College report predicted 500k US deaths a month ago with social distancing.

Now I didn't believe them to begin with so I'm not gonna pat Trump on the back but it's not just numbers the White House made up.

The Imperial College estimates I saw with respect to the US were based on no social distancing. I could not find one for the US with social distancing. The only model I've seen referenced that one can really look at it the University of Washington Model. And it has always had a very wide credibility interval I have never seen anything to indicate that the range of what we should expect is 100,000 to 200,000 and strongly suspect the Trump people put that out there in order to be able to act like they REALLY did something.

[BDKJMU]

Current Worldometer Deaths per 1 Million Population (only counted countries over 1 million population):
-Europe top 9, 16 of top 18..

1. Spain: 330
2. Italy: 302 (WSJ study showed major under count in hardest hit Lombardi region; Italy apparently doesn't count deaths at home).
3. Belgium 218
4. France: 187
5. Netherlands: 140
6. UK: 118
7. Switzerland: 110
8. Sweden: 79 (with physical distancing but no stay at home, almost no shutdowns).
9. Ireland: 53
10. US 50 (would be between Germany & Slovenia if wasn't for NYC metro area).
11. Iran: 49 (liars)
12.Denmark: 41
13. Portugal 40
14. Austria: 33
15. Germany 31
16. Slovenia 21
17. Norway 20
18. Estonia 18
19-20: Ecuador, Panama: 15
21. Macedonia 14
22-23: Canada, Romania: 13
24-26: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Turkey, DR: 11
27-28: Czechia, Israel: 10
29-33: Albania, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Serbia: 8
34-35: Moldova, Hungary: 7
36-37: Lithuania, Trinidad & Tobago: 6
38-40: Algeria, Croatia, Poland: 5
41-43: Brazil, Peru, S Korea: 4
44-50: Armenia, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Chile, Lebanon, Montenegro, Morocco: 3
51-63: Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bolivia, China (liars), Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Malaysia, Philippines, Qatar, Tunisia, Uruguay: 2

[BDKJMU]

I'm going to propose a new rule for the weekly football game prediction threads on here and AGS.. You get to change your prediction after every quarter- you know because new data and current game trend lines.

If you had everybody try to predict a set of games at the beginning of the season then let them change the predictions for the remaining games each week you'd see that sort of thing happen.

I still say that Trump and his people did that 100,000 to 200,000 stuff early on in order to be able to come back later and claim they did better than expected. What I was seeing at that time in the only completely referenced model I could see is that the credibility interval was anywhere from around 30,000 to 140,000. I never did see precise information on where that 100,000 to 200,000 came from.

What's happened now with the University of Washington model is that it went from predicting about 30,000 to about 140,000 to predicting about 31,000 to 127,000. It's not that big a change. People need to look at the credibility interval and not the point estimate.

The original model will have been "correct" if the final figure ends up in the 30,000 to 140,000 range. Also, you will have to wait to see what CDC estimates are before deciding how the model did. What we are seeing now is a count of definite confirmed cases. As is the case with the flu, the CDC will estimate the death toll to account for under-reporting and for situations in which COVID-19 was a factor in death but the death is listed as being from some other proximate cause.

Like saying someone is correct if they predict their team to go between 3-8 and 11-0..