COVID-19 Megathread 4: Grandma Got Run Over by the Dow Jones

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I genuinely think that this is very, very funny.

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/1246206126473043968

I didn't say there is 100% correlation or that lock-downs didn't help...

The data looks like it correlates, but actually doesn't.
There is no correlation there?

 JFC. 

There's a correlation but it's not really illustrative of anything. You could probably find state-level predictors which are much more informative than whether the county has a food desert.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

When are we going to be willing to have a conversation about whether we have massively overreacted without people saying that anyone who doesn't repeat the #StayAtHomeFor18Months #FlattenTheCurve mantra is wanting people to die?

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1246491967841882112

Maybe when we have evidence (not self-reported speculation) from actual scientists along the lines of what is listed in the tweet. The 50x number you're quoting is drawn out of thin air. Your confirmation bias is showing.

San Miguel County, CO (Telluride) is trying to test everyone in the county (giving a much better idea of what asymptomatic infection rates are). They're only about 15% of the way there but preliminary results show, at most, 4% infection, with only 1% absolute positives.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

When are we going to be willing to have a conversation about whether we have massively overreacted without people saying that anyone who doesn't repeat the #StayAtHomeFor18Months #FlattenTheCurve mantra is wanting people to die?

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1246491967841882112

Maybe when we have evidence (not self-reported speculation) from actual scientists along the lines of what is listed in the tweet. The 50x number you're quoting is drawn out of thin air. Your confirmation bias is showing.

San Miguel County, CO (Telluride) is trying to test everyone in the county (giving a much better idea of what asymptomatic infection rates are). They're only about 15% of the way there but preliminary results show, at most, 4% infection, with only 1% absolute positives.

11 million people would only be about 3% of the US.

Extrapolating from a (nonrandom) sample of 1000 tests out to 330 million people is statistical malpractice.

With that said, out of the ~1000 tests they've performed, they have 9 positives. Extrapolating that out to the US population gives only 3 million. Of course, there's (relatively) massive uncertainty in that estimate, and San Miguel is not representative of the rest of the US.

There's no actual evidence that there are 11 million people infected.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I never claimed to know more about this than Fauci (although, I do think I have a decent understanding of epidemics for a lay man with no formal training).  Obviously, he knows a lot more about viruses than I do.  But, the epidemic itself is just one portion of the issue here.  We need to also listen to economists and mental health experts to come up with the best solution for as many people as possible.  We need to be more holistic than just saying that the only goal is to completely stop a virus.  By that logic, we should live in lockdown forever.  We would almost never get sick if we did that, but it would also be no life to lead.

emphasis added by me

Survey shows that economists think that loosening lockdowns before the virus is contained will lead to more economic damage than the lockdowns themselves.

Question B: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk.

Strongly agree: 41%
Agree: 39%
Uncertain: 14%
Disagree: 0%
Strongly disagree: 0%
No opinion: 0%

The general consensus among actual economists is that the best way to resume economic activity is to contain the virus. Reopening public economic activity will simply lead to another high-transmission period for the virus.

If you really want to watch sports, go to YouTube. You can find entire broadcasts (sans commercials) of old football, hockey, basketball, etc. games. I think MLB even put the entirety of the last two seasons online.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

De Blasio (like Kemp) thinks we only learned within the last 48 hours that asymptomatic people could spread the virus:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/bill-de-blasio-rejects-claim-u-s-knew-asymptomatic-people-could-spread-the-virus-only-learned-that-in-the-last-48-hours/

“The city’s position used to be that healthy people don’t need masks because they’re not very effective at preventing the virus from coming in, they’re mostly from keeping you from spreading it, so explain this new recommendation,” Lehrer said.

“Exactly, it’s still the fundamental truth, so we have, you know, a renowned health department here in New York City… only in the last really 48 hours or so do they feel they’ve seen evidence around the world, particularly a new study coming out of Singapore, that shows more evidence that this disease can be spread by asymptomatic people,” de Blasio responded.
.
.
.
When Lehrer asked, “Didn’t we know weeks and months ago that asymptomatic people can spread this disease?” The mayor insisted we did not.

“No, the fact is I’ve been at so many press conferences where our top doctors for New York City addressed this and they said ‘we just didn’t have evidence from all the global medical community that was studying this issue,” de Blasio told Lehrer. “There was suspicion, but there was not evidence.”

I guess they don't listen to Dr. Fauci:

https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1246493897712418827

What the CDC and most of the public health establishment was saying up until yesterday was that there is no reason to wear a mask unless you are sick.  That would imply that if you aren't sick then you can't spread the virus.

You could interpret it that way, but the reason that directive exists is that masks are much better for stopping transmitting virus particles to others (as well as to other surfaces) than they are at stopping virus particles from reaching you.

One of the main ways the virus is transmitted is through spit particles. A lot of spit particles are large and will be caught by a mask, but these particles typically only travel short distances. There are a lot of smaller spit particles (or even airborne viral material) which can travel further distances and can pass through most masks (but not N95s).

So the idea is, if you are sick, wear a mask because it will stop your larger spit particles from traveling to people you come into close contact with, surfaces, or your hands/arms. But if you aren't sick and there are airborne particles, a mask will not help you.

One of the main advantages to an asymptomatic (or even non-infected) person wearing a mask is that you're much likely to touch your mouth or nose (with an infected hand) if you're wearing a mask. They probably thought it would be better to tell people not to touch their faces and that would be sufficient, but that was idiotic and unrealistic advice for people to follow.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Yet another day in a row where the percentage increase in new cases was less than the day before (and testing is up again).  It wouldn't surprise me we're approaching the peak of new cases in the next couple days (the peak of active cases and deaths would follow a couple weeks behind), and we can start on the downward part of this curve by next week.

The good news is, if you continue to make this claim every week, one of these times you'll be right. Until then it's a matter of minimizing embarrassment when you're wrong.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Panic buying is already a *major, major problem (and so far is actually a bigger problem than anything we've seen on the healthcare side).

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1246909791680770050

Flattened? It's gotten steeper. Yes it's not accelerating as much, that's not flattening. I hope he just had a brain fart here.

"Not accelerating as much" is flattening.  You'll never see decreasing numbers of total cases/deaths, only flattening.

I hope you just had a brain fart here.

Flattening would be fewer cases per day. That wasn't happening in recent days. Cases/day had an increasing slope.

Yes it seems like people are willfully defining "flattening" to be the seventh derivative being negative.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1246909791680770050

Flattened? It's gotten steeper. Yes it's not accelerating as much, that's not flattening. I hope he just had a brain fart here.

"Not accelerating as much" is flattening.  You'll never see decreasing numbers of total cases/deaths, only flattening.

I hope you just had a brain fart here.

Flattening would be fewer cases per day. That wasn't happening in recent days. Cases/day had an increasing slope.

Testing capacity is still ramping-up, so we should expect more positive tests as a result of expanded testing.  As Nate Silver says:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1246919689416122369

Only 6k more new cases over last Sunday, and that's in-spite of a more than 40% increase in testing.

Any chance that this means that there is a light at the end of the tunnel by earlier than mid-June?

I need more evidence to be convinced that we're actually seeing a deceleration (people were saying the last thing last Sunday and Monday was gruesome), but assuming it is true, if there are no efforts taken to stop transmission then the end of shelter in place will lead to more outbreaks.

Silver attributes (without evidence) the trend to social distancing. If deceleration is happening due to social distancing, and you release susceptible people into public life without any sort of mass-testing, contact tracing, or serious quarantining, then June will look just like late March.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Also worth noting that a decrease in Arch's reported percentage increases isn't necessarily informative because the overall number of cases (i.e., denominator used in the calculation) is increasing. You could have a constant number of new cases each day, and that percentage increase would be going down.

Yesterday was a record high number of absolute new cases (34K), and the day before was the first date with 30K new cases. Anybody acting like there is a week-long trend in decreases is either innumerate or dishonest.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

You could have a constant number of new cases each day, and that percentage increase would be going down.

Due to consistent sub-exponential growth, we have an increase in case numbers whilst having a drop in case % growth.

Case % growth is therefore not a useful indicator under these circumstances.

What would be the preferred metric?

I like seeing your metrics actually. I think some people are reading in to them more than they should, but the numbers are what they are.

Probably the best way to do this is to calculate the percentage change from the previous day's new cases. E.g., if you get 20000 cases yesterday and 21000 cases today, you'd have a 5% increase in cases.

If x_{t} is the number of cases on day t, then you'd want something like

100 * [(x_{t} / x_{t-1}) - 1]

This would be vulnerable to noise in fluctuations from day to day; you could use a moving average if you wanted to get sophisticated.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Short but fascinating thread for people who want to know some basics of how the virus works:

https://twitter.com/PeterKolchinsky/status/1246975275021348865

Interestingly there's a good explanation in here for why there are so many asymptomatic patients: SARS-2 infects the throat rather than the lungs, which doesn't elicit the same physical response.

https://twitter.com/PeterKolchinsky/status/1246975283346931713

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

You can't blame Governor Tony Evers if Wisconsin sees a Covid-19 spike in a few weeks. The election photos coming in so far look like a recipe for disaster.

I'll blame him, though not as much as the Republicans.  He should have supported a delay in the election from the beginning.

I don't disagree that he should have advocated for it sooner but there is apparently no way to get a SCOWIS or the legislature to do what he wanted. It wouldn't have made a difference. The ultimate problem is WI-LEG and SCOWIS are dangerous partisan actors.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

4/8 (Today):

• Cases: 434,698 (+34,761 | Δ Change: ↑2.77% | Σ Increase: ↑8.69%)
• Deaths: 14,787 (+1,974 | Δ Change: ↑1.02% | Σ Increase: ↑15.41%)

Looks like new records today for both cases and deaths.

but our Resident-epideMiologSt has repeatedly assured us that the curve has been flattened

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

WSJ Opinion:  Virus mortality crashes as economic misery skyrockets.

WSJ should be embarrassed for publishing this dog crap and paying this moron. A journalist and "economist" with zero medical credentials belittling the advice of medical experts and accusing them of a waging a "war" on the economy? Get the fkcu out of here with that. I think COVID-19 will be a crystallizing moment for the country, when it finally realizes its had just about enough of the right wing's war on expertise and knowledge.

And yet, doctors with no economic background can insist on shutting down the world for indefinite periods of time, ruining billions of lives in the process, and that's fine because muh M.D.

lmao doctors didn't shut down the world, the virus did

even if you accept that asinine claim at face value, nearly every economist in the US thinks that reopening the economy before the virus is contained for the sake of muh GDP would be bad because... wait for it... an unconstrained virus would further curtail economic activity

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

How tf is it false?
The deaths are happening very rapidly and the entire city is shocked by these events. If anything, I think this is worse than 9/11.

Because the death numbers don’t distinguish between those dying with Corona vs. those dying from Corona. That’s a pretty big deal.

Anybody who knows even the basics of medicine knows that these are indistinguishable, especially considering the very high number of people who are being seriously ill/dying with no pre-existing conditions.

Even still if you are surviving with an underlying pre-existing condition and are infected with the virus, it's certainly making your condition worse. Dying of your pre-existing condition which was exacerbated by COVID is functionally equivalent to dying of COVID itself.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1248374630399672321
Mass graves... just one more day in Donald Trump's Great Republican America.

Keep America Great™

Let's not forget that (D) president would not stop flights from China because muh xenophobic, and what exponential growth would mean together with incompetence of (D) NY officials.

Trump's wise decision probably saved [ten] thousands of lives of his native NYC and in US 🙏🙏🙏

Small sample size but a sample of early infected people in NYC found 2/3 of them were infected from European visitors (of which on any given year there will be much, much more of than Chinese visitors).

https://twitter.com/QuickTake/status/1248351088438370304

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

Data is data.

You're not looking at data, you're looking at a model output. It literally says "projected". That's not data.

I find it insulting that people who don't know the difference between a credible interval and a confidence interval are trying to appeal to one model result as if they were experts, or as if they could even understand what the model is doing.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

Dawg, you're literally quoting something that states it's not a random study. It's the first sentence of the text you quoted.

From a Bayesian perspective, it's one study from a pool of studies. It adds information and informs our range of what we think plausible outcomes are, but there are other studies which plausibly give other values which produce a range of outcomes. And this even ignores plausible uncertainty in estimates within each of these models.

Acting like 0.36% is a definitive number rather than one of a suite of plausible mortality rates is dishonest and pushed by people who don't care or know enough about science on it to have a valid opinion.

Your shtick of turning every post into this thread into a referendum on Trump is extremely tedious by the way. Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference between heteroskedasticity and Oklahoma City. I have absolutely zero interest in his idiotic opinions on science and statistical models.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Did you miss the part of the tweet you posted that said "the number of *deaths* has been broadly in line with models in NY State that assumed social distancing"?

The rest of the thread is dedicated to giving plausible alternative explanations for why you may still have a high case load without seeing a disproportionate increase in hospitalizations.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Shocking how the same people who ignored a plethora of scientific studies suggesting a higher mortality rate when they were available are now taking one outlier regional study, written in a language they can't read, as gospel simply because it conforms with their opinion.

What studies? Even WaPo and CNN recognized eventually that most studies shows it in 0.3-1%. The study from Germany was in fact the FIRST true random study, other are estimations based of [incomplete] data.

Obviously, one study is just one study, but it was first proper one.

The study by researchers at the University of Bonn involves testing 1,000 individuals in the hard-hit district of Heinsberg in northwestern Germany in an attempt to ascertain the number of people who have been infected without realizing it.

The preliminary findings were based on results from 509 individuals, the researchers said in a news conference on Thursday.

Some 14 percent of the sample had antibodies for the disease, and an additional 2 percent had current infections. A death rate of 0.37 percent is well below the 3.4 percent case fatality rate cited by the World Health Organization last month and at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists.

Basically, all the studies showed Trump was right when he criticized ridiculous 3.7% of WHO. But CNN and MSNBC were... being CNN and MSNBC.

Dawg, you're literally quoting something that states it's not a random study. It's the first sentence of the text you quoted.

From a Bayesian perspective, it's one study from a pool of studies. It adds information and informs our range of what we think plausible outcomes are, but there are other studies which plausibly give other values which produce a range of outcomes. And this even ignores plausible uncertainty in estimates within each of these models.

Acting like 0.36% is a definitive number rather than one of a suite of plausible mortality rates is dishonest and pushed by people who don't care or know enough about science on it to have a valid opinion.

Your shtick of turning every post into this thread into a referendum on Trump is extremely tedious by the way. Donald Trump couldn't tell the difference between heteroskedasticity and Oklahoma City. I have absolutely zero interest in his idiotic opinions on science and statistical models.

Where does it state it is not random?

Taking samples from one region is by definition not random. Even if it was a random subset of people within that region (nothing in what you posted suggests that is true by the way) you need to do a lot of work to ensure that accurately is applicable to other regions. E.g., if there are discrepancies in the way tests are administered or causes of death are assigned between Germany and Spain, then you couldn't generalize these results to Spain unless you had some sort of corrections. It's the same reason why you have limited inference in applying mortality estimates from Lombardy to mortality estimates in Montana.

At best this study gives you the estimate of mortality for sick people in one region of Germany, and that's under ideal conditions of how these people were included in the survey.

Who's acting like it is "a definitive number"? It is "at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists", but it is first one TRUE study. The only way to get TRUE rate is randomly chose people. Like poll.

This is idiotic. The "true" mortality rate is obviously context and age-dependent. And if you wanted to see people treating this one estimate as gospel, skim though any of the last five pages of this thread and look for blue avatars.

It is not my schtick. As I said when Trump rightfully questioned ridiculous WHO #s (based on China), because he had #s from South Korea, MSM and this thread went nuts. So I just pointed out that Trump was right.

This does nothing to convince me that my previous assessments are correct. You're tedious and Donald Trump doesn't know anything about science.

The same by the way with Cuomo's ridiculous claim about 40,000 (when Italy had 2,000 totally) additional ventilators. As it is right now, it seems like 5,000 will be enough for NY.

Bad deflection.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Taking samples from one region is by definition not random. Even if it was a random subset of people within that region (nothing in what you posted suggests that is true by the way) you need to do a lot of work to ensure that accurately is applicable to other regions. E.g., if there are discrepancies in the way tests are administered or causes of death are assigned between Germany and Spain, then you couldn't generalize these results to Spain unless you had some sort of corrections. It's the same reason why you have limited inference in applying mortality estimates from Lombardy to mortality estimates in Montana.

At best this study gives you the estimate of mortality for sick people in one region of Germany, and that's under ideal conditions of how these people were included in the survey.

What? Germany is also just a "region". Whole Europe as well... So we should stop doing these studies? LMAO.

Nobody said we should stop doing these studies. I was saying unless you're limiting your scope of inference to the one city this survey was conducted in then this isn't a random sample. Of course these studies are worth doing; trying to generalize the results in one city to the US is just not good statistical practice. It fails for the same reason that trying to generalize the mortality data from NYC to the rest of the US would fail.

Hintergrund: Die Gemeinde Gangelt ist in Deutschland einer der am stärksten vonCOVID19 betroffenen Orte Deutschlands. Es wird angenommen, dass dasInfektionsgeschehen auf eine Karnevalssitzung am 15. Februar 2020 zurückzuführenist, da mehrere Personen im Nachgang zu dieser Sitzung SARSCoV2 positiv getestetwurden. Die Karnevalssitzung und das Ausbruchgeschehen der Sitzung wird derzeitnoch genauer untersucht. Es wurde eine repräsentative Stichprobe aus der GemeindeGangelt (12.529 Einwohner) im Kreis Heinsberg gezogen. DieWeltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) empfiehlt ein Protokoll, bei dem je nach zuerwartender Prävalenz stichprobenartig 100 bis 300 Haushalte untersucht werden.Diese Stichprobe wurde auf ihre Repräsentativität abgestimmt mit Herrn Prof. ManfredGüllner (Forsa).

Ziel: Das Ziel der Studie ist es, den Stand der durchgemachten und noch immerstattfindenden SARS-CoV2 Infektionen (Prozentsatz aller Infizierten) in der GemeindeGangelt zu bestimmen. Zusätzlich soll damit der Stand der derzeitigen SARS-CoV2Immunität ermittelt werden.

Vorgehen: Ein Serienbrief wurde an ca. 600 Haushalte verschickt. Insgesamt nahmenca. 1000 Einwohner aus ca. 400 Haushalten an der Studie teil. Es wurden Fragebögenerhoben, Rachenabstriche genommen und Blut auf das Vorliegen von Antikörper (IgG,IgA) getestet. In diese erste Auswertung gehen die Zwischenergebnisse undRückschlüsse von ca. 500 Personen ein.

Translation from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/fxqszt/study_of_heinsberg_cluster_in_germany_suggests/fmvw144/

For context: Heinsberg is a municipality in Northrine-Westphalia. On February 15, a man who was unknowingly SARS-CoV-2 positive attended a large carnival event in the town of Gangelt, setting in motion the wide spread of SARS-CoV-2 within Heinsberg and the rest of the state.

Goal: The study aims to uncover the number of current and past SARS-CoV-2 infections in Gangelt with the intention of estimating the current level of immunity within the community.

Methods: A letter was sent to a representative sample of 600 households, asking them to participate in the study. 400 households, totaling 1000 people, chose to do so. Surveys were administered, pharyngeal swabs taken and antibody testing (IgG and IgA) was also done. 500 people were part of the group studied in this pre-publication.

Preliminary results: Present immunity was determined to be around 14% (anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive, Specificity 99%). Roughly 2% of participants showed an ongoing infection as determined by PCR. The combined percentage of past and present infections was found to be 15%. The case fatality rate relative to the total number of infected detected in this study was 0.37%. Lethality for Germany as a whole as determined by John-Hopkins University currently stands at a number five times higher: 1.98%. Mortality relative to the total population of Gangelt was found to be 0.06%. [This last sentence previously said 0.15%, by which they probably meant mortality from all causes for whatever reason. The number has been updated in the link in the comments.]

They mention in German the WHO's recommendation about at least 300 randomly chosen households.

It's not perfect, obviously, it is small, it is preliminary, it is [insert other caveats], but it is the (only) random study we have. And, as WaPo mentions, it is "at the lower end of the 0.3 to 1 percent range that has been estimated by scientists", so the results are NOT sensational, but inside previously estimated interval.

Okay. I have read the translation you posted. Thoughts:

- There is absolutely no information about how the 1000 households the survey was sent to were selected. Claiming this is "random" without any further information is abusive and misleading.
- You have to assume the probability of responding to the survey is independent of all other factors, e.g., age, family size, and most importantly, infection status. This is the same reason why many political polls conducted via phone are biased.
- There is no detail about how averaging was done here. Was this done at the household level or at the individual level? If it was done at the individual level, then it would be way too confident about the uncertainty around the estimate because of the non-independence of people within a household, not to mention the fact that there could be differences among households.
- 500 is a decent but not excellent sample size; the effective sample size is smaller if you consider the groupings within households.
- With 500 survey participants and an infection rate of 15%, you have ~75 infected people. This is a tiny, tiny sample size for determining mortality. An estimated mortality rate of 0.34%, you likely had only one or two infected survey respondents die. The uncertainty there is going to be massive.
- The estimate is also incomplete because 2% of survey respondents are still infected
- There's no estimate of uncertainty around this 0.34% number! For a sample this small it's going to be tiny.

So even if the survey respondents were chosen independently (there is no evidence this is true), and even if the people who responded to the survey who are infected are reflective of a random sample of people in this city, the sample size is laughably small and uncertainty in the estimate would be massive.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

A Facebook group of 45,000 people here in Michigan plan to protest the shutdown order at the state capitol this week. Apparently the hospital system becoming overwhelmed and millions of people dying is perfectly acceptable so that people can go back to work.

Hopefully if they do try this the state police will be waiting to arrest them all but another part of me hopes that every one of them gets the virus because that’s what they deserve for their sheer ignorance.

That's a lie on your part, hospitals aren't being overwhelmed in Michigan. Nice try.

I'm not even going to talk about that "millions of people dying" bit because doing so would result in me losing brain cells.

The millions of people dying in Michigan was an obvious hyperbole, but hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/04/running-out-of-body-bags-people-dying-in-the-hallway-coronavirus-has-michigan-hospital-workers-at-a-breaking-point.html%3foutputType=amp

Granted, the distribution of the virus isn’t even in Michigan so some parts may be perfectly fine, but plenty of hospitals are struggling.
I usually like your posts, but this one is completely off.

I hesitate to believe an obviously over-exaggerated article over the hard data.

Do you know what "data" means?

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

Data is data.

You're not looking at data, you're looking at a model output. It literally says "projected". That's not data.

I find it insulting that people who don't know the difference between a credible interval and a confidence interval are trying to appeal to one model result as if they were experts, or as if they could even understand what the model is doing.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

A Facebook group of 45,000 people here in Michigan plan to protest the shutdown order at the state capitol this week. Apparently the hospital system becoming overwhelmed and millions of people dying is perfectly acceptable so that people can go back to work.

Hopefully if they do try this the state police will be waiting to arrest them all but another part of me hopes that every one of them gets the virus because that’s what they deserve for their sheer ignorance.

That's a lie on your part, hospitals aren't being overwhelmed in Michigan. Nice try.

I'm not even going to talk about that "millions of people dying" bit because doing so would result in me losing brain cells.

The millions of people dying in Michigan was an obvious hyperbole, but hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/04/running-out-of-body-bags-people-dying-in-the-hallway-coronavirus-has-michigan-hospital-workers-at-a-breaking-point.html%3foutputType=amp

Granted, the distribution of the virus isn’t even in Michigan so some parts may be perfectly fine, but plenty of hospitals are struggling.
I usually like your posts, but this one is completely off.

I hesitate to believe an obviously over-exaggerated article over the hard data.

Do you know what "data" means?

@ Idiots who think we can't reopen the Summer

Keep putting your foot in your mouth, you'll eventually learn to like the taste.

Data is data.

You're not looking at data, you're looking at a model output. It literally says "projected". That's not data.

I find it insulting that people who don't know the difference between a credible interval and a confidence interval are trying to appeal to one model result as if they were experts, or as if they could even understand what the model is doing.

Talking about the performance of the various models is relevant, if these projections were used in calibrating the public policy response - like they were

That's not what he's doing. He doesn't know what the difference between data and a model prediction is. His opinion here is entirely irrelevant because he's trying to defend his points with oranges that he thinks are apples.