Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Sterling

About AuburnArch13

  • Rank
    Tenured Professor

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,600 profile views
  1. I have not seen any evidence am that a “significant” number of medical professionals are saying the number of COVID deaths are being inflated. It is true that getting a “precise” count of COVID deaths is difficult because of many of the reasons alluded to in this discussion. Often there are multiple factors in any given person’s cause of death, and sometimes there are red herrings. It is also true however that many COVID deaths are going unreported due to people dying at at home or away from a hospital and never being tested. So we have factors pulling the number in both directions, and the medical professionals doing the counting are using systems that have proven themselves to be highly “accurate” if not completely precise. We also have other ways of getting good estimates of high-casualty events, like war, famine, or pandemics, by looking at total death (from any cause) numbers. Because of the law of large numbers, the number of total death is the US in any given month is actually pretty stable. As is, roughly the same number of people die in February every year etc. we can use this data to measure the likely number of deaths in any given month during a mass-casualty event (like Covid 19) against what you would expect based on historical data. People have been doing this and the evidence from these analysis suggest that the number of COVID deaths being reported are likely an undercount rather than an over count because the increase in deaths this year over historical expectation is outpacing the reported number of COVID deaths. This also dispels the notion that these people would have just died from something else if not for COVID. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be more total deaths. This article does a good job of going into detail about the process of getting accurate cause of death estimates for events like this if you’re at all interested in increasing your mathematical literacy rather than merely continuing to dig your heels in on the opinion that a disease that has already killed more 130,000 Americans in the last 6 months, the vast majority of whom would still be alive if not for the disease, is not that big of a deal.
  2. Dude, wear a mask. It costs you nothing. While the mask offers you some protection, it’s main feature is that it protects other should you become infected. You yourself just said there is a good chance that if you were, you might not even know it. Not wearing a mask isn’t brave, it’s incredibly selfish.
  3. Do you really not understand how a society where a preponderance of people are either walking around sick or as asymptomatic carriers endangers people at risk, even if those people are self isolating as much as feasible? You might not be dragging your 91 year old mother around everywhere, but she still has to eat. She has to get her groceries from somewhere, which means she can’t be perfectly contained. If she falls, she may have to go to the hospital, meaning she isn’t perfectly contained. If she’s like many other 91 year olds and needs an in-house caretaker, then she isn’t perfectly contained. It is very hard for anyone to live in perfect isolation, especially those most at risk. And it’s not just 91 year old moms that we’re talking about. There are many of at risk people of working age, plenty of whom are “essential” and now having to chose between their health or their livelihood. It shouldn’t be hard to see how a population with rampant infection is more dangerous for them and our 91 year old moms than one that isn’t. Economic concerns a real, shouldn’t be taken lightly, and you won’t hear me dismiss them. Lockdowns, partial and otherwise, have hurt people and that is extremely unfortunate. We should be doing everything we can as a society to help those people who have been put in this situations through no fault of their own. We are a wealthy enough country to do that if we are willing to. Stimulus checks were a great start in that regard. But the best thing we can do get the actual pandemic under control as quickly as possible so that we can reopen as quickly and with as few restrictions as possible. That happens by stamping out the disease by eliminating transmission (hard to do this late in the game), coming up with a vaccine (hopefully we will have one sometime early next year) or putting in place systems to reduce transmission by locating and selective quarantining the infected. Fortunately, we have a good idea how to do that, through massive amounts of testing and contact tracing. Unfortunately, we have been ineffective in stockpiling tests or creating large scale protocols for contact tracing. Make of that reality whatever you will. I get that you want to open up. I want to open up to, but I want to do safely even if that doesn’t mean doing it as quickly as either of us would like.
  4. Trying to reach “herd immunity” without the use of a vaccine is very difficult and risky to do without a lot of loss of life. By its own definition, it would require a lot of people getting sick. We’ve seen how fast this virus can spread when unchecked, so if we let that happen completely we’d likely be looking at hospital overrun as was the case in Italy. What we’ve also seen in this pandemic, is that it’s very hard to keep the most at risk 100% isolated. Even if people can mostly stay home and aren’t going to restaurants or bars, many still have to go get groceries and things like that which require human interactions. Even those who can stay home 100% of the time still have to interact with caretakers or delivery people. Even a good system is leaky, so it’s not just a matter of people “staying home if you’re worried”. If the population is flooded with mildly sick or asymptomatic carriers, that illness will get to many that are trying to keep as isolated as possible. Sweden is facing that issue as we speak. The long term goal is to get to where we have an effective vaccine or antivirals with a minimal human suffering and loss of life along the way. There are ways to get there without being reckless and without locking things down indefinitely. Nearly all of the experts on this have said we need more testing and comprehensive contact tracing. Unfortunately our county has not acted as quickly as some others (e.g. South Korea and New Zealand) on those fronts, which is why we are both more locked down and more sick than those countries. But unfortunately, we can’t just pretend that we’ve done the work that we needed to in order to just reopen everything willy-nilly. Doing so will in all likelihood result in great loss of life. And I’m not particularly eager to start burying grandparents.
  5. I’m not sure this means what you think it does... There were certainly hopes that social distancing would have proven more effective here than it has. But, regrettably there are large contingencies of people not taking it as seriously as they should, and we have also done a pretty poor job as a county moving quickly on things like testing and contact tracing. But there are plenty of examples of these measures being used across the globe with different intensities and different levels of success (though nearly always more successful than ours). If you truly believe that slowing the spread of a contagious disease is unaffected by minimizing the types of interactions whereby that disease is spread, then maybe you’re throwing the word “irrational” around a little too cavalierly.
  6. Those numbers at first glance don’t look too unreasonable to me at first glance, understanding that they are likely making some assumptions. We’ve known for a while that the risk levels skew heavily with age and this tends to reflect that. You mentioned in another post an aggregate mortality rate of around .2% (or .002). That actually reflects what I’ve seen from folks in the epidemiological community. If you assume that we have that rate in the US currently, then the 80,000 deaths that we’ve had translates to around 40,000,000 total cases or about ~12.5% of the US population so far that has contracted the virus. I’m not an epidemiologist but none of those numbers jump out as being impossible so far. Looking specifically at the numbers that you posted, a few things that might look encouraging at first, but scarier upon further inspection are the rates for folks in the 50-69 ranges. While the death rates themselves don’t look nearly as scary as their older cohorts, the hospitalization rates are actually pretty high. This seems to indicate that the survival rates of people in this age group is highly dependent on them getting good treatment. What we’ve seen in some of the most hard hit places like Italy is that many people who might have survived given could treatment were lost when the hospitals were overwhelmed with patients and patients had to be triaged. That’s why the whole “flatten the curve” mantra started. It’s easy to imagine the mortality rate for certain groups going up substantially if they aren’t getting prompt and adequate treatment. With all that said, there are still a lot of unknowns such as how virus react in the warmer months and such. But even with the rough numbers and rates we’ve discussed it’s not hard to imagine the total US deaths jumping into the hundreds of thousands of this thing goes unchecked. Heck, we’re almost a 100,000 now, and that’s a lot of Americans...
  7. You’re right that there isn’t a win-win here. With any solution there will be trade offs between lives lost and economic loss. But the trade off isn’t 36,000,000 people losing their jobs vs 80,000 deaths. Those are both part of the same side of a trade off . The restrictions that have been put in place has kept the mortality total at 80,000 so far. Without them the total would be much higher, likely many multiples higher. It’s also not safe to assume that there would be no economic damage without the restrictions. If there were no restrictions and the death total spiked there would be economic fall out. Businesses would likely still fail, and jobs would still be lost. The trade off we are looking at is 80,000+ deaths plus 36,000,000 currently lost jobs vs a counterfactual with many more deaths and (possibly) some deal smaller job loss. It’s hard to put numbers to the counterfactual without some sophisticated modeling, which is why personally I tend to differ to the consensus of epidemiologists and economists whenever possible.
  8. Feel free to post whatever chart you found, but this is pretty obviously not true. There are ~328,000,000 in the United States. If the mortality rate was .002% (or lower) as you suggest, then even if everyone in America caught it, we’d only be look at 6,560 deaths (328,000,000 x .00002). Considering we’ve already eclipsed 80,000 deaths in the US with a only a fraction of the population having been infected, that number is clearly nonsense.
  9. Hard to imagine that he turns that kind of money. Got the feeling that these late rumors or college might be an 11th hour negotiation tactic to get the best deal possible. Or at least that’s what I going to convince myself of until tomorrow afternoon.
  10. I think I agree with this in general. Kuminga might be a special case though in that I don’t know that he’s elibible for the G-league at this point with his age/ graduation status. If the G-league is only taking a half a dozen kids or so, they may be all set by the time there is clarity in his situation.
  11. I guess... I’m pretty agnostic on whether or not that’s actually true. I guess my bigger question is ‘why is that important?’ Shouldn’t our primary concern be what’s best for the kids? So much of this thread in the last day has gone on and on about “three year requirements” and “earlier signing dates” and an general focus on what’s what’s “best for college basketball”. Now we’re getting to the point of hoping that some kid’s draft stock falls because he chose to make money with his abilities? Seems kinda perverse to me. I’m as bummed as anyone that we won’t get to see Green in an Auburn jersey, but I’m ecstatic for him that he’s about to make a life changing amount of money for himself and his family. I’m also ecstatic that this gets us closer to getting rid of the NBA’s stupid and collusive age restrictions. I sincerely hope that Green and the rest of these G-league kids have a terrific year that leads to a terrific career. I couldn’t care less if that’s “good” or “bad” for college basketball.
  12. Hard to compete with half a million in cash + endorsements. Sucks but it is what it is.