NBA Season Suspended Indefinitely

[Ruzious]

I guess the best indicators are looking at what happens to the countries that got it first. Are they finished with it? Do they end up getting a 2nd waive of it? We have (or will have) the advantage of being able to see what happens in those countries. But as of now, we really don't know what's coming.

[nate33]

Nate Silver on case counts: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-case-counts-are-meaningless/

Unless testing protocols and availability are held constant, case numbers are not reliable indicators of the virus's progression. Even new hospitalizations and death have issues as indicators, as hospital capacity may affect number of hospitalizations, and changes in cause of death reporting/capacity to handle death cases could impact their reliability as indicators.

But taken together, the statisticians have seen indications that the U.S. curve is flattening, which makes sense given the type and timing of measures taken. Predicting the future is incredibly difficult because of the political/economic/practical considerations of predicting mass behavior, not the infectiousness of the virus itself.

Most western countries are essentially testing people that come to them with symptoms, and some of the better ones are also testing those who have been in contact with those with symptoms. But even so, in most of the West, only 0.5-1.5 percent of the population has been tested. And in these countries, the percent of the tested population who are positive is around 0.1%, with hotspots like Italy and Spain at around 3%

However, there are two Western countries that have tested substantially more of their population than the rest of Europe: Iceland and Luxembourg. Luxembourg has tested 4.2% of their population and Iceland has tested 9%, even though both countries have per-capita death rates comparable to the rest of Europe (and therefore the virus is presumably no more or less prevalent there than elsewhere in Europe). Basically, they're the only two countries in the West that have tested significant amounts of asymptomatic people. What's really interesting is that those two nations are also reporting MUCH higher per capita incidences of the virus. They are showing positive rates of around 0.46%, or roughly 4 times higher than the rest of the countries in Europe.

This appears to me to be fairly convincing evidence that there are at least 4 times as many asymptomatic people as symptomatic people. Indeed, it's probably more like 5-10 times as many (because presumably even Iceland is oversampling from symptomatic people).

This leads to two very significant conclusions. First, the virus is MUCH less deadly than perceived. Right now, we see the U.S. with a death rate of about 3% of positive tests. But if there are 5-10 times as many positive asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic people who aren't even being tested, then the true death rate drops to the 0.3-0.5% range. Secondly, it means that we could conceivably reach herd immunity at a much faster rate than the CFR suggests. The U.S. has 450,000 reported cases, the real number might be 3 million. We need to get to 200 million to get Herd Immunity.

[nate33]

The other issue that needs to be explored is the absolutely MASSIVE disparity in death rates between young and old people, and perhaps more importantly, between healthy people and those with chronic health issues.

The bottom line is that, statistically, this virus isn't really harmful at all to young people. According to CFR statistics at the end of March, only 0.1% of school age children are hospitalized for this, and there have been literally zero deaths. It's only barely more harmful to those between 20-49, where we are seeing just 2.5% of them go to the hospital and only 0.3% die - and most of those deaths are to people with other medical complications. And those numbers aren't even factoring the likelihood that 5-10 times as many people tested positive are positive and asymptomatic. So you can reduced those totals by another 80-90%.

Meanwhile, this virus is brutal to the elderly and those with medical complications. 50% of people over age 65 end up in the hospital and 5% of them die. (Those numbers drop when you factor asymptomatic cases, but my guess is that old people are also less likely to be asymptomatic)

We need to utilize the fact that young people are essentially immune as a means to fight the virus. We are doing the exact wrong thing by closing schools and workplaces. We should be doing the opposite. We should be TRYING to have young people get this. Heck, we should be holding Chicken Pox parties! At the same time, we should be intensely quarantining old people and those with pre-existing conditions.

If we could manage to expose ALL people under age 30, plus 80% of people age 30-50 (the ones who are healthy and lack medical issues), while simultaneously quarantining the rest, we would end up with about 200 million exposed to the virus. That gets us Herd Immunity and it would only take 2 months with far less interruption of the economy. Going by the hospital statistics we have now, about 20,000 would die, far less than our current "flatten the curve" plan. The hospitals wouldn't even get overwhelmed because there is such a low hospitalization rate for young people.

It's presumably not feasible to get 100% of some age groups infected while 0% of other age groups so the true death total would certainly be higher as the virus occasionally bleeds out into older age groups. I'm just giving the idealized stats to illustrate the proof of concept. We could save MORE lives and have a more functional economy if we focused more on WHO gets the virus rather than worrying so much about WHEN.

Meanwhile, we would only endure a 2-month stretch of a slightly impaired economy (people over 50 couldn't go to work) and there would be no Phase II of quarantine where we are forced to spend the next 12 months in quasi-quarantine with periodic lockdowns.

[nate33]

One other thing to add.

The logic of "flattening the curve" is significantly undermined by the fact that respirators have proven to be shockingly ineffective. The numbers I've seen show that between 80 and 90 percent of people that go on a respirator end up dying anyhow. And the odds are even lower for those over age 70. They're basically doomed if they go on a respirator. All this effort to maximize the availability of respirators isn't saving many lives at all.

[willbcocks]

On respirator effectiveness, flattening the curve is what has made this a story about the relative effectiveness of respirators, as opposed to the relative effectiveness of any treatment at all. Had we not flattened the curve, you would have had a repeat of Wuhan, where the hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed and people were staying home/remaining untreated. There weren't enough medical personnel in the first place and those that were there were infected more seriously at higher rates.

I've long thought that caution is advisable given that every attempt at predicting the course of the virus has humbled mankind.

[nate33]

On respirator effectiveness, flattening the curve is what has made this a story about the relative effectiveness of respirators, as opposed to the relative effectiveness of any treatment at all. Had we not flattened the curve, you would have had a repeat of Wuhan, where the hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed and people were staying home/remaining untreated. There weren't enough medical personnel in the first place and those that were there were infected more seriously at higher rates.

I've long thought that caution is advisable given that every attempt at predicting the course of the virus has humbled mankind.

Yes, some flattening of the curve is necessary to ensure that there is enough hospital capacity for everyone. But we HAVE a lot of hospital capacity, particularly with so many hospitals canceling elective surgery in preparation for the virus, and also considering that it's not flu season. It is only the media-hyped hot spots that are busy right now. Many hospitals are actually laying off people because their usage is so low.

Certainly, the upper limit of cases we can serve is much, much higher if you look at overall hospital bed availability rather than solely at ICU bed availability. Also, temporary hospital beds that can provide oxygen and fluids can be ramped up quickly if necessary. We could even do creative things like modify unused hotel buildings to serve as recovery rooms for those who are over the worst of the symptoms but are still too weak (or contagious) to go home.

[payitforward]

nate is writing at length & very intelligently on this subject. I'm glad to have the opportunity to read your words, nate.

I doubt that the level & kind of organized planning & decision-making you describe in the long posts you wrote this morning would have been possible. As well, in a sense the ideas themselves reflect things we know about the virus that we didn't know at the point when such decisions would have had to be made.

In the same sense, "overall hospital bed availability" can't be posed simply as a number, because the distribution of those beds vs. the distribution of the cases imposes both costs & low likelihoods on putting people who need such a bed in one of them.

Your point about e.g. Iceland (which I've been watching too) is a really good one. Above all, it would be great if we got to herd immunity sooner rather than later. Then again... the more we flatten the curve the longer it takes to get to any particular number of infections whether symptomatic or not.

[nate33]

nate is writing at length & very intelligently on this subject. I'm glad to have the opportunity to read your words, nate.

I doubt that the level & kind of organized planning & decision-making you describe in the long posts you wrote this morning would have been possible. As well, in a sense the ideas themselves reflect things we know about the virus that we didn't know at the point when such decisions would have had to be made.

In the same sense, "overall hospital bed availability" can't be posed simply as a number, because the distribution of those beds vs. the distribution of the cases imposes both costs & low likelihoods on putting people who need such a bed in one of them.

Your point about e.g. Iceland (which I've been watching too) is a really good one. Above all, it would be great if we got to herd immunity sooner rather than later. Then again... the more we flatten the curve the longer it takes to get to any particular number of infections whether symptomatic or not.

Fair point about all the facts not necessarily being understood back in February and early March. We were reacting rather than planning. And perhaps that was for the best. Perhaps we needed a total lockdown for a month to get ahead of this thing, get some PPE in the pipeline, and develop some better treatment methods.

But I think we are now in position to enact something resembling my plan. There is talk in many states of selectively opening up the economy again. That's good. But their mindset is still viewing things from an overall transmission rate rather than orient around who gets the virus. They absolutely should open up schools for the final month of the school year for example, and they should tell the elderly and health impaired NOT to go into public. And they really need to dial down the fear factor. For young people, there is no need to fear this. It really is like the flu (for them).

[Ruzious]

I think it got out of hand in NYC because - in part - that young people weren't scared enough. From everything I heard, there was far too much partying going on and far too many big crowded events because they didn't take it seriously enough. And old people also didn't take it seriously enough. With the flu, there are a lot more deaths than people seem to realize, and that's with people being able to get flu shots. Until they come up with the equivalent for this virus, it's a different situation.

[payitforward]

(I don't think I've mentioned, & I probably should, that my daughter is a Doc in SF. She, her husband, & both their teenage kids all got Covid-19. They're all 100% recovered.)

nate -- I'm guessing you may be familiar with Richard Epstein's essay for the Hoover Institution, the interview with him in the New Yorker, his 3/24 "corrections" to the essay, & his subsequent revision of the essay (published April 6). Much of the blame for the early Conservative response to Covid (essentially: do nothing; this will pass & is no big deal) can be laid at his feet. Which means that the responsibility for many deaths may also have to be laid at his feet -- & at the feet of those who trumpeted his "contrarian" model.

To be sure, we did not know 1 or 2 months ago, but all policy decisions -- all decisions, really -- are made in a context of uncertainty. How did von Clausewitz put it: "the battle plan rarely survives contact with the enemy." Yet, if you are the one making the decisions, you are responsible for the results.

(I should also mention that I've known Richard Epstein for 50 years. I can't think of a single occasion, over that span, when he did not conflate the sound of his voice with "the truth.")

[payitforward]

I think it got out of hand in NYC because - in part - that young people weren't scared enough. From everything I heard, there was far too much partying going on and far too many big crowded events because they didn't take it seriously enough. And old people also didn't take it seriously enough. With the flu, there are a lot more deaths than people seem to realize, and that's with people being able to get flu shots. Until they come up with the equivalent for this virus, it's a different situation.

Agree. It's misleading to say that young people have "nothing to fear" -- hey, the flu can kill you too!

But, nate's point is still a good one: overall, I'd simplify it to this -- the least damaging way to get to herd immunity is for young people, not old, to be infected by the virus. Keep in mind that if someone gets Covid & dies, he/she hasn't moved us towards herd immunity!

&, in any case, actions taken out of fear are by definition not constructive.

[nate33]

I think it got out of hand in NYC because - in part - that young people weren't scared enough. From everything I heard, there was far too much partying going on and far too many big crowded events because they didn't take it seriously enough. And old people also didn't take it seriously enough. With the flu, there are a lot more deaths than people seem to realize, and that's with people being able to get flu shots. Until they come up with the equivalent for this virus, it's a different situation.

I think the other thing that makes NYC a huge outlier is public transportation. In NYC more than any other city in America, public transportation is THE way to get around town. Most New Yorkers don't even have cars. The subway and the buses are huge, disgusting vectors for the virus.

In general, the northeast is taking this much worse than the rest of America because they have cities that were built before the age of the automobile so the housing is high density and the means of transportation is public. Everywhere else, the lifestyle of people isn't as seriously interrupted. We can still drive our cars to work and reside in our suburban neighborhoods with plenty of green space.

[TheBabyMaker]

Worked with led (lead, poisoning) and asbestos long enough the only thing can save you from this disease is a full face hepa mask. this disease Its 0.l micrometers so even a pep (lead mask) cant stop this. These mask they are wearing now is a joke when you don't know how to properly dispose them and use them properly. But carry on. If you cant work from home I dam sure would not work for a place that don't have full face oxygen mask for monts(mainly people want to go back to work and work in offices.). And I have worked in places like this before.

One last Get a Hepa vac machine or stay home. Thinking some BS mask or gloves is going to stop this when you don't properly rid the mask and glove. You really don't understand a purpose.

Edit you still need to wash wash wash and sanitize your hands and face.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

I think it got out of hand in NYC because - in part - that young people weren't scared enough. From everything I heard, there was far too much partying going on and far too many big crowded events because they didn't take it seriously enough. And old people also didn't take it seriously enough. With the flu, there are a lot more deaths than people seem to realize, and that's with people being able to get flu shots. Until they come up with the equivalent for this virus, it's a different situation.

I think the other thing that makes NYC a huge outlier is public transportation. In NYC more than any other city in America, public transportation is THE way to get around town. Most New Yorkers don't even have cars. The subway and the buses are huge, disgusting vectors for the virus.

In general, the northeast is taking this much worse than the rest of America because they have cities that were built before the age of the automobile so the housing is high density and the means of transportation is public. Everywhere else, the lifestyle of people isn't as seriously interrupted. We can still drive our cars to work and reside in our suburban neighborhoods with plenty of green space.

True on some levels, but from a statistical and public health perspective, I respectfully disagree.

Suburban neighborhoods mean more cars, more driving, more crashes, higher speeds and more death. Add to that the public health challenges of obesity, isolation and depression and you don’t have to be Jane Jacobs to understand suburban patterns of living as inefficient and, yes, bad for our health overall, this present crisis notwithstanding.

[nate33]

I think it got out of hand in NYC because - in part - that young people weren't scared enough. From everything I heard, there was far too much partying going on and far too many big crowded events because they didn't take it seriously enough. And old people also didn't take it seriously enough. With the flu, there are a lot more deaths than people seem to realize, and that's with people being able to get flu shots. Until they come up with the equivalent for this virus, it's a different situation.

I think the other thing that makes NYC a huge outlier is public transportation. In NYC more than any other city in America, public transportation is THE way to get around town. Most New Yorkers don't even have cars. The subway and the buses are huge, disgusting vectors for the virus.

In general, the northeast is taking this much worse than the rest of America because they have cities that were built before the age of the automobile so the housing is high density and the means of transportation is public. Everywhere else, the lifestyle of people isn't as seriously interrupted. We can still drive our cars to work and reside in our suburban neighborhoods with plenty of green space.

True on some levels, but from a statistical and public health perspective, I respectfully disagree.

Suburban neighborhoods mean more cars, more driving, more crashes, higher speeds and more death. Add to that the public health challenges of obesity, isolation and depression and you don’t have to be Jane Jacobs to understand suburban patterns of living as inefficient and, yes, bad for our health overall, this present crisis notwithstanding.

That's a totally different issue, but one that intrigues me. Is urban living healthier overall? Certainly the chances of dying in a car accident presumably drop, but what about crime? What about mental health? Happiness? Overall, its probably a very difficult comparison to make because you'd have to account for differences in socio-economic status, among other things.

It seems the preference for most Americans is to live in suburban areas, particularly if you can find a job that is also in a nearby suburban area.

[payitforward]

...in most of the West, only 0.5-1.5 percent of the population has been tested. And in these countries, the percent of the tested population who are positive is around 0.1%, with hotspots like Italy and Spain at around 3%

However, there are two Western countries that have tested substantially more of their population than the rest of Europe: Iceland and Luxembourg. Luxembourg has tested 4.2% of their population and Iceland has tested 9%, even though both countries have per-capita death rates comparable to the rest of Europe (and therefore the virus is presumably no more or less prevalent there than elsewhere in Europe). Basically, they're the only two countries in the West that have tested significant amounts of asymptomatic people. What's really interesting is that those two nations are also reporting MUCH higher per capita incidences of the virus. They are showing positive rates of around 0.46%, or roughly 4 times higher than the rest of the countries in Europe.

This appears to me to be fairly convincing evidence that there are at least 4 times as many asymptomatic people as symptomatic people. Indeed, it's probably more like 5-10 times as many (because presumably even Iceland is oversampling from symptomatic people).

This ... means that we could conceivably reach herd immunity at a much faster rate than the CFR suggests. The U.S. has 450,000 reported cases, the real number might be 3 million. We need to get to 200 million to get Herd Immunity.

Really, this is key.

& the important testing would be for antibodies not antigens -- "herd immunity" essentially means significantly lowering the number of people in the "herd" who still are able to contract the disease.

Why aren't we testing in numbers similar to those of Iceland? The answer is easy: we've cut spending on public health in half over the last couple of decades. And this, like it or not, you put on the Republican right with its "starve the beast" strategy stretching back to the core of conservatives who took over the party in the wake of the rise of Ronald Reagan.

You can argue that they did it b/c they don't care. You can argue that it was an unexpected, unplanned, even unwanted result of intentions that had nothing to do w/ these outcomes. But, you can't argue that they didn't do it. They did -- it was their goal, & they reached it.

[montestewart]

Has it really been a month since any Wizard missed a shot?

[montestewart]

I hadn't seen any sign of Dat2U recently and got worried, but it looks like he's still active on the board.

That got me thinking about da1, but he's still active too.

Then I thought, what the hell does ducler do now? But he's still active too. Maybe posting daily COVID-19 stats.

With the season suspended, many people might not have as much use for a basketball board, with other priorities taking precedence now, but anybody know what's up with these guys who haven't posted for a while?

nuposse04
verbal8
trast66
deneem4
dangermouse
jangles86

Also these guys, who haven't been on the board for quite some time?

Mojo Amok
MarcoPolo
Illmatic12
miller31time
dandridge 10
stevemcqueen1
WizarDynasty
Donkey McDonkerton
CobraCommander

I am surely overlooking some names too, like long time Wiz board contributors pine, WizStorm, fishercob, Nivek

Yeah stilldropin, even you.

Hope you all are well.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Has it really been a month since any Wizard missed a shot?

We’re still undefeated with Mo Almond on the team.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Six and zero!

Has it really been a month since any Wizard missed a shot?

We’re still undefeated with Mo Almond on the team.

Sent from my SM-A205U using RealGM mobile app