tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post824034212596840217..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: Covid Links - But Not Really About CovidAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-76318625052678606802021-09-18T16:26:41.938-04:002021-09-18T16:26:41.938-04:00Texas99: ceterus doesn't stay paribus for long...<b>Texas99</b>: <i>ceterus doesn't stay paribus for long</i><br /><br />Quite so! If humans continue to reproduce at their current rate, about 1% per year, they will swallow the Sun in just a few thousand years.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-25432985022250198612021-09-18T15:01:41.986-04:002021-09-18T15:01:41.986-04:00In a complex world in which more things are usuall...In a complex world in which more things are usually going on than in the little segment we're myopically focused on, ceterus doesn't stay paribus for long. All the little temporary exponential curves start colliding and moderating each other. The whole world isn't 100% stocked with E. coli, for instance, to the exclusion of all other life forms.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-2509954393658344542021-09-18T12:47:04.835-04:002021-09-18T12:47:04.835-04:00Gavin Longmuir: Zach incorrectly asserted: "C...<b>Gavin Longmuir</b>: <i>Zach incorrectly asserted: "Ceteris paribus, growth is exponential." </i><br /><br />Ceteris paribus, holding other things constant. <br /><br /><b>Gavin Longmuir</b>: <i>The more sophisticated, better informed view is that most growth processes are better described by a Logistic equation -- effectively an S-shaped curve. </i><br /><br />This is not a logistic equation:<br />https://ktla.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/11/AP20318623472781.jpgZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-13323947788694599522021-09-18T11:36:58.182-04:002021-09-18T11:36:58.182-04:00BTW, Brad is "unknown". Don't know ...BTW, Brad is "unknown". Don't know why it didn't identify me.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-36319961137576305122021-09-18T11:21:48.874-04:002021-09-18T11:21:48.874-04:00Zach incorrectly asserted: "Ceteris paribus,...Zach incorrectly asserted: <i>"Ceteris paribus, growth is exponential."</i><br /><br />The more sophisticated, better informed view is that most growth processes are better described by a Logistic equation -- effectively an S-shaped curve.<br /><br />Professor Charles Handy made a small industry out of demonstrating the application of the S-shaped curve to real world examples.<br /><br />But exponential growth is more frightening, and thus gets pride of place among the proponents of Project Fear.Gavin Longmuirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15955888612464168346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40943291429760938272021-09-17T15:48:47.304-04:002021-09-17T15:48:47.304-04:00Unknown: However, you neglect to point out the par...<b>Unknown</b>: <i>However, you neglect to point out the part where the population available for infection gets smaller. </i><br /><br />Vaccinations and previous infections reduce R0—but the ratio remains the same. A 10% mask efficiency would reduce new infections by half over a seven week period. So, as more people acquire immunity, whether through vaccination or natural infections, the masks continue to slow the spread. <br /><br /><b>Unknown</b>: <i>The other point is that a lower R value that is still above 1 will only flatten the curve and not stop continued infection of the population. </i><br /><br />Slowing the infection allows for implementation of other social measures, including vaccination and boosters as required. On the other hand, there's no accounting for perversely refusing to take simple measures against a dangerous pathogen, but that's humans for ya. <br /><br />--<br />Notes on previous comment: <br /><br />Ceteris paribus, growth is exponential. In this case, R0 is the base, and generations or weeks are the exponent. Given R0 = 3, each person infects three others in a week, while each of those infect three others, and so on. By weeks, we have 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729, 2187. The expansion of new infections is, therefore, R0^W.<br /><br />After seven weeks, the infected population expands 3^7 = 2187 times. If the population wears masks, and given a 10% reduction in exposure so that R0 = 2.7, then the infected population would expand 2.7^7 = 1046 times. Masks therefore cut the number of new infections in half after seven weeks. <br /><br />The longer the expansion continues, the greater the effect of masking. After eleven weeks, the ratio is 3^11/2.7^11 ≈ 3. <br /><br />By the way, in this basic model, the value of R0 doesn't matter. The *ratios* remain the same.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-71483140209206694842021-09-17T14:03:13.984-04:002021-09-17T14:03:13.984-04:00Zachriel,
I would disagree with your 70% since I h...Zachriel,<br />I would disagree with your 70% since I have seen numbers as low as 40%, but since the data is all over he place, I included the 70%.<br /><br />You are right about the geometric progression as far as you take it. However, you neglect to point out the part where the population available for infection gets smaller. That is why an epidemic curve is bell shaped and not continuously upward. <br /><br />The other point is that a lower R value that is still above 1 will only flatten the curve and not stop continued infection of the population. Remember all the "flatten the curve" graphics? My point on the graph is that even high-ish vaccine efficacy and high vaccination rates will not stop the virus with Delta's high transmissibility. Vaccines looked like a good way to almost stop the pandemic with 95% efficacy and Ro of 3, but not so much with and Ro of 7 or more.<br /><br />So I am back to what material difference will masks make when we are almost all going to be exposed, even if masks "flatten the curve" a bit. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789850738110446496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-32980156473492558062021-09-17T09:09:22.025-04:002021-09-17T09:09:22.025-04:00Brad: Here is a link to a google sheet I created t...<b>Brad</b>: <i>Here is a link to a google sheet I created that shows various possibilities for transmissibility. </i><br /><br />It's important to keep in mind that Reproduction Number is theoretical and actual transmissibility depends on human responses. The typical pattern is relaxation leading to increased spread followed by agitation leading to reduced spread. That makes the actual pattern dynamical. <br /><br />Also, the effectiveness of the vaccines are probably greater than 70% for the Delta variant, at least in the U.S., and if not, then boosters will be made available. <br /><br />In any case, you suggest several possible values for the effective Reproduction Number. Let's use 3. Assume one generation a week, and a 10% reduction in spread due to masking. After seven weeks, twice as many people will have become infected in a society that doesn't mask. In eleven weeks, more than three times as many people will have become infected in a society that doesn't mask.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40946972636409193352021-09-16T19:41:55.943-04:002021-09-16T19:41:55.943-04:00Here is a link to a google sheet I created that sh...Here is a link to a google sheet I created that shows various possibilities for transmissibility. Maybe you could state your assumptions and we could see the impact of a 10% change in transmissibility. <br />https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bz7C25jPiTGWIE2YkAReGOBbxBJWgtvpLfxJj5JFmD4/edit?usp=sharingBradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-43051446292875222132021-09-16T19:39:27.112-04:002021-09-16T19:39:27.112-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-13933732648308526752021-09-16T15:14:01.269-04:002021-09-16T15:14:01.269-04:00Zachriel,
I said AVI hadn't changed opinions &...Zachriel,<br />I said AVI hadn't changed opinions "much". Also, assuming a certain number would fall ill and then acknowledging that number was wrong is not exactly the same as changing an opinion. <br /><br />I agree that the tone of the blog I linked was problematic, hence my "he's as angry as you". Anyone that is going by "el gato" is not trying to get in a scientific journal. Which doesn't mean he's wrong.<br /><br />I would like to see some numbers regarding how much the transmission and infections would change based on the results of the study. I understand your "exponential" comment and would like to see a parametric analysis around how different the US would look. I could try it, but I wouldn't be sure of the results.<br /> <br />I'm not sure you got the authors point when you pointed to Table A17, which was "first off, this proves conclusively that 'your mask does not protect me.' (though we already knew that) if it did, it would protect everyone, not just old people. but it didn’t. and the idea that it stopped old people from getting sick but not young people is similarly implausible. the odds on bet here is that old people were more inclined to please the researchers than young people and that they failed to report symptoms as a result."<br /><br />In any case, my main point in my "masking" comment was that AVI was making the point that this study was basically unassailable. Honestly, NOTHING seems unassailable in the time of covid. I linked to some criticism of the study, which much of it seemed plausible to me, if not to you.<br /><br />I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-51192283726048105892021-09-16T14:34:22.413-04:002021-09-16T14:34:22.413-04:00Cranberry: That seems to work out to $87 per perso...<b>Cranberry</b>: <i>That seems to work out to $87 per person, for a 20 week study, including follow-up.</i><br /><br />The study required more extensive testing, surveys, and monitoring; and therefore, cost significantly more than implementation. <br /><br /><b>Cranberry</b>: <i>Is there any place for cost/benefit analysis in the "masks work" argument? </i><br /><br />Abaluck et al: "We estimate that a scaled version of our intervention being implemented in Bangladesh will cost about $1.50 per person, and between $10K and $52K per life saved, depending which estimate we use for excess deaths."Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40930468794397918272021-09-16T13:23:28.675-04:002021-09-16T13:23:28.675-04:00The mask study seems to have cost $3 million. Tha...The mask study seems to have cost $3 million. That seems to work out to $87 per person, for a 20 week study, including follow-up. So, a year's intervention for the US population would be $76 billion. <br /><br />Is there any place for cost/benefit analysis in the "masks work" argument? <br /><br />We may be seeing 20% inflation in the future, so perhaps that doesn't seem to be a large sum. I think it's a large sum. I also observe at social gatherings people don't mask "properly." The Met Gala ball is a case in point. Long term, servants masking and elites not masked is poisonous.Cranberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14192766384424717627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-24146057031750632252021-09-16T08:14:30.339-04:002021-09-16T08:14:30.339-04:00Brad: can anyone demonstrate that this data makes ...<b>Brad</b>: <i>can anyone demonstrate that this data makes a more compelling case for “masks worked on old people but not young people and thus decreased overall disease”? </i><br /><br />See Table A17 from the study.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-8322649500449074552021-09-16T07:10:10.055-04:002021-09-16T07:10:10.055-04:00Brad: As I read your take on covid-19, it seems th...<b>Brad</b>: <i>As I read your take on covid-19, it seems that you too have not really changed your opinions much. </i><br /><br />Assistant Village Idiot: "Way back in early 2020 I thought we might have much less problem on this side of the Atlantic. . . . Well, things spiked quickly, as you well know."<br /><br />Meanwhile, others kept repeating that COVID was no big deal, a hoax, no worse than the seasonal flu, even as hundreds of thousands were dying. <br /><br /><b>Brad</b>: <i>https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe </i><br /><br /><i>this one would get you laughed out of a 7th grade science fair. </i><br /><br />Any analysis of a scientific study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that starts like that is probably not serious. <br /><br /><i>1. establish the starting condition. </i><br /><br />They tested for exposure to COVID at the start of the experiment. <br /><br /><i>2. randomize cohorts into even groups in terms of start state and risk. </i><br /><br />The population is very large 342 thousand, 600 villages) so random fluxes will be minimized. <br /><br /><i>3. isolate the variable you seek to measure. </i><br /><br />The study shows that mask promotion worked to increase mask usage, social distancing, and reduce infection. That doesn't "prove" masks were the primary cause of reduced infection, but it is strong evidence. <br /><br /><b>Brad</b>: <i>My position from the beginning (proving your point?), is not that masks have no efficacy, but that it is small when used in a public setting </i><br /><br />When dealing with exponential growth, small changes in initial conditions can have very large changes in outcomes. <br /><br /><b>Brad</b>: <i>and this study, even if it is taken at face value, would show relatively small impacts on infectivity (altho "small" is in the eye of the beholder). </i><br /><br />They showed the reduction represented significant savings, as well as reduced human suffering.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-29109586082205708252021-09-15T19:29:00.762-04:002021-09-15T19:29:00.762-04:00Regarding the mask study, as with ALL things covid...Regarding the mask study, as with ALL things covid-19, there are alternative views. Since you are so interested in motivations, one criticism of the study "Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money?"<br /><br />And yes, this guy is as angry as you: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe<br /><br />My position from the beginning (proving your point?), is not that masks have no efficacy, but that it is small when used in a public setting and this study, even if it is taken at face value, would show relatively small impacts on infectivity (altho "small" is in the eye of the beholder). Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-47954509803389445142021-09-15T18:46:04.314-04:002021-09-15T18:46:04.314-04:00You seem to be upset that people don't change ...You seem to be upset that people don't change their minds once they've come to a conclusion. And I agree that people should be open to change to some extent. However, at some level we should take Ephesians 4:14 to heart "As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;" Certainly we should be open to changing our minds, but we should do it carefully. As I read your take on covid-19, it seems that you too have not really changed your opinions much. Apparently you must have just had the right ones from the beginning. :)Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-76432409865301792502021-09-15T18:44:09.430-04:002021-09-15T18:44:09.430-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272207550344418426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-9585424846144206772021-09-15T15:21:38.393-04:002021-09-15T15:21:38.393-04:00Donna: "We'll be paying economically for ...Donna: <i>"We'll be paying economically for a long time for both of those and neither of them did anything to stop the spread of Covid."</i><br /><br />Yes indeed, Donna. We will be paying economically for a lot of bad Lock Down decisions made by our bureaucrats & politicians. And paying in health terms too.<br /><br />You are pointing to a key issue which our Best & Brightest completely ignored -- decisions about public health involve trade-offs. For example, we can make vehicles much safer in crashes to save lives and reduce injuries. But doing so inevitably increases the size & weight of the vehicle making it less fuel efficient. There is no free lunch.<br /><br />Think back over the course of Project Fear -- how often did you hear about senior officials acknowledging the trade-offs and justifying their decisions? Did you hear them apologizing to the relatives of the young people who committed suicide because of the Lock Downs? How often did you hear them acknowledge that people with strokes, heart attacks, and cancer were dying because of delayed treatment while the medical system focused on saving the lives of other people with Covid?<br /><br />These are difficult balances to strike, because benefitting one group of people harms another group of people. Pretending that "Zero Covid" is the only thing that matters is false. We needed open discussion about the trade-offs -- but we did not get it.Gavin Longmuirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15955888612464168346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-36041660392351604722021-09-15T14:46:46.859-04:002021-09-15T14:46:46.859-04:00Blogger HMS Defiant said...
"I would give mor...Blogger HMS Defiant said...<br />"I would give more weight to Donna's points if the evidence was not right there in front of us. No matter what you do you will still stand a good chance of getting the disease. Destroying the economy to prevent it strikes me as really stupid."<br /><br />What evidence are you referring to that I'm not seeing? <br /><br />What did I write that makes you think I would prefer destroying the economy to prevent this? Is getting vaccinated going to do that? Is standing a few feet apart in the checkout lane disastrous to business? Mask-wearing created business opportunities. <br /><br />I disliked the mandated extra unemployment benefits and especially disliked how long they lasted. The ban on collecting rent/mortgage payments was ridiculous. We'll be paying economically for a long time for both of those and neither of them did anything to stop the spread of Covid. Donna B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16771075314473811594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-58790609571338532722021-09-15T13:44:09.358-04:002021-09-15T13:44:09.358-04:00HMS Defiant: No matter what you do you will still ...<b>HMS Defiant</b>: <i>No matter what you do you will still stand a good chance of getting the disease. </i><br /><br />When social distancing and masks are ubiquitous, the level of virus in the population is significantly reduced, and with it, the level of virus load acquired and the probability of infection. <br /><br /><b>HMS Defiant</b>: <i>The authorities making their statements have contracted their own statements over and over again. </i><br /><br />That's what happens when it's a rapidly evolving *novel* pathogen. <br /><br /><b>HMS Defiant</b>: <i>Every social medium and spokesman for authority dictats has banned any speech that contravenes the "authority" and when I say banned, I mean banned and expelled from the internets and even professional associations. </i><br /><br />Private platforms can regulate speech, such as when people propagate falsehoods in the middle of a deadly crisis. <br /><br />What's interesting about social media is that they found out that they can keep people interested (and make oodles of money) by connecting them with like-minded people. That's great for knitting clubs, not so good when conspiracy theories spread. <br /><br /><b>HMS Defiant</b>: <i>I think you'll find that when you suppress all dissenting voices you get adequate agreement among authorities in the field.</i><br /><br />You are confusing social media with the scientific community. Of course, scientists are biased. And sure, scientists tend to be very conservative, but the scientific community will bend to evidence. That's why what you hear about COVID has changed over time. If you have the evidence, then you can get published. Just don't be surprised if nonsense is treated as nonsense. <br /><br /><b>Texas99</b>: <i>They think they're protecting people from dangerous bad ideas, but what they're really doing is causing people to doubt the censors' party line. </i><br /><br />Social media has created highly concentrated information bubbles, which has allowed nonsense to be treated as substantive.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-89844807864087801362021-09-15T12:39:43.689-04:002021-09-15T12:39:43.689-04:00That's the problem with censorship: the censo...That's the problem with censorship: the censorers lose all their credibility. They think they're protecting people from dangerous bad ideas, but what they're really doing is causing people to doubt the censors' party line. That's bad policy, but it's particularly bad if the censors actually have some valuable information and need to get it out.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-1266962507513430192021-09-15T12:32:19.521-04:002021-09-15T12:32:19.521-04:00I would give more weight to Donna's points if ...I would give more weight to Donna's points if the evidence was not right there in front of us. No matter what you do you will still stand a good chance of getting the disease. Destroying the economy to prevent it strikes me as really stupid.<br />With regard to the words of Z,<br /><br />I doubt the expertise of the specified authorities. They have gooned it big time and appear to have been responsible for the gain in function research that led to this debacle.<br /><br />The authorities making their statements have contracted their own statements over and over again. How do you explain that? Are they wrong, partly wrong, mostly wrong or just not all that expert?<br /><br />The valid field of study is an interesting one don't you think? Every social medium and spokesman for authority dictats has banned any speech that contravenes the "authority" and when I say banned, I mean banned and expelled from the internets and even professional associations. That's not a good sign that we're hearing the results of valid studies when one bunch squelches every voice that says otherwise.<br /><br />I think you'll find that when you suppress all dissenting voices you get adequate agreement among authorities in the field." That's what's happening now.<br /><br />The bias is all around but some cannot see it and refuse to believe it could be there.HMS Defianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10024721130102173694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-40402724382934039492021-09-15T10:39:23.733-04:002021-09-15T10:39:23.733-04:00Gavin Longmuir: Go and read up on the scientific m...<b>Gavin Longmuir</b>: <i>Go and read up on the scientific method. </i><br /><br />We didn't say making an appeal to authority is the scientific method. An appeal to authority is a type of inductive argument, based on the experience that experts are more likely to be correct than non-experts in a field, though not infallibly so, and is evaluated as follows:<br /><br />• The cited authority has sufficient expertise.<br />• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.<br />• The area of expertise is a valid field of study.<br />• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field, and the authority is expressing this agreement.<br />• There is no evidence of undue bias. <br /><br /> The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.<br /><br /><b>Gavin Longmuir</b>: <i>Then come back and explain where "consensus" fits in to true science, where nothing is ever settled </i><br /><br />Everyone, including scientists, rely on the work of others. Regardless, evidence trumps, and science can be said to be an empirical method of challenging the prevailing consensus. <br /><br /><b>Gavin Longmuir</b>: <i>-- and even the longest-standing theory tumbles if a single observation is at odds with that theory.</i><br /><br />That's a bit of an exaggeration. The anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury didn't cause Newton's Theory to tumble. It was just recast as Newton's Theory (excepting that anomaly thingy). Even direct observations can have a multitude of confounding factors. <br /><br />"All models are wrong. Some are useful." — George E. P. BoxZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-37059966393646357272021-09-15T10:14:49.711-04:002021-09-15T10:14:49.711-04:00Zachriel: "... the scientific consensus on g...Zachriel: <i>"... the scientific consensus on global warming."</i><br /><br />Zach! Zach! Zach! You really did blow it there. Go and read up on the scientific method. Then come back and explain where "consensus" fits in to true science, where nothing is ever settled -- and even the longest-standing theory tumbles if a single observation is at odds with that theory.<br /><br />Then go and read President Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, paying particular attention to his concerns about the potentially negative impact of Federal funding on science. Remember -- Eisenhower had been President of Columbia U before becoming President of the USA.<br /><br />How do individuals make up their minds about issues? It seems you are demonstrating that many individuals first look at what other people in the herd are doing and then run in that direction. Peer Pressure! Try thinking for yourself -- maybe we get it wrong, but at least we are using our brains and not allowing "peers" to bulldoze us in a particular direction.Gavin Longmuirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15955888612464168346noreply@blogger.com