Ok, when we open up the multiverse, we can figure out how that would've gone.
Instead, we have this reality.
(Speaking of which, I'm hearing good things about remdemsevir - good job on that!)
Math is not a magic 8 ball, but what you're asserting is not now statistical analysis of variance works.
All virus infections follow a curve that includes exponential growth. All viruses naturally burn themselves out, leading to an overall bell curve of overall infection.
It has become abundantly clear that what I speculated weeks/months ago - that the viral spread started not in February, but in December (or earlier) - is true. Thus, all of the models based on Day 0 being in February were wrong. The inflection point was off by months. The change in growth/spread is consistent with a virus that started spreading much earlier than originally assumed.
Further, you are basing "exponential growth" on incomplete data, yielded from intentionally diminished testing. The rate of testing has changed. The ability to test and rate of testing for antibodies has changed. Thus, there is no true picture of rate of growth then vs now, on which to make an ANOVA claim of a statistically significant change in rate of growth before and after SIP orders.
Again, perfect data is an illusion in this reality.
There's no denying the decisions were based on incomplete data, that's part of the problem with a novel virus: we don't know what we don't know.
At the time the decisions were made, the actual deaths appeared to be (and likely were) growing exponentially. What that meant in terms of infections is unknown and likely unknowable. But, the actual math available was compelling.
I saw it postulated this weekend that what we may have been witnessing the last month or so was actually the dreaded 2nd wave.
Again, perfect data is an illusion in this reality.
There's no denying the decisions were based on incomplete data, that's part of the problem with a novel virus: we don't know what we don't know.
At the time the decisions were made, the actual deaths appeared to be (and likely were) growing exponentially. What that meant in terms of infections is unknown and likely unknowable. But, the actual math available was compelling.
I have some family that are convinced that they already had it. Apparently very bad cold/flu late last year.
I have some family that are convinced that they already had it. Apparently very bad cold/flu late last year.
I see it as analogous to the murder-by-county map, that shows something like 50% of all murders taking place in 2% of US counties. As some demand with respect to gun control, a nation-wide pandemic response policy was adopted to deal with a hyper-localized problem.
ETA: another perhaps-useful graphic would be to show nursing home vs all other COVID deaths.
Math is not a magic 8 ball, but what you're asserting is not now statistical analysis of variance works.
All virus infections follow a curve that includes exponential growth. All viruses naturally burn themselves out, leading to an overall bell curve of overall infection.
It has become abundantly clear that what I speculated weeks/months ago - that the viral spread started not in February, but in December (or earlier) - is true. Thus, all of the models based on Day 0 being in February were wrong. The inflection point was off by months. The change in growth/spread is consistent with a virus that started spreading much earlier than originally assumed.
Further, you are basing "exponential growth" on incomplete data, yielded from intentionally diminished testing. The rate of testing has changed. The ability to test and rate of testing for antibodies has changed. Thus, there is no true picture of rate of growth then vs now, on which to make an ANOVA claim of a statistically significant change in rate of growth before and after SIP orders.
I saw it postulated this weekend that what we may have been witnessing the last month or so was actually the dreaded 2nd wave.
Yeah. If one business should have been locked down, it would be nursing homes.
Right now I see T-Lex as speculation and your post here as hindsight.
What I want to know is if a disease comes along in say 20 years and the same assertions are made, If we start out to prove causation, how would one go about setting up a study that would satisfy those who say they are not? How long would the study take to provide conclusive results that everyone agreed to? and how far would it have spread before we took any action? How many deaths would have happened before we conclude it is as bad as they say it is?
Yes. How nursing homes didn't implement strict isolation/quarantine controls (including for the healthcare workers there) completely escapes me.
And then there were the (mostly democrat) Governors who issued virtual death warrants by forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-positive/symptomatic residents/patients.
To be fair....to ask a governor to know epidemiology when so much disinformation is coming from Federal levels of expected competency....is, perhaps, a bit much.
And the "democrat" is just ****ing gratuitous.
I honestly don't know if you can prove causation.
Yes. How nursing homes didn't implement strict isolation/quarantine controls (including for the healthcare workers there) completely escapes me.
And then there were the (mostly democrat) Governors who issued virtual death warrants by forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-positive/symptomatic residents/patients.
Yes. How nursing homes didn't implement strict isolation/quarantine controls (including for the healthcare workers there) completely escapes me.
And then there were the (mostly democrat) Governors who issued virtual death warrants by forcing nursing homes to take in COVID-positive/symptomatic residents/patients.