Corporate America seeks legal protection for when coronavirus lockdowns lift

jem said:
No one is saying we are going to eradicate Covid with testing and tracing.
We need to know stats and make decisions based on science... I agree.

We need to know what is happening with low risk groups.
What is the effective R0 with low risk people
There is no science based reason that been shown us... indicating low risk people should stay in lockdown right now.

I refer you to the Prado paper.
its all models... but no one has a model saying lockdown creates better results among low risk groups.

not when you factor suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence... not to mention the economic consequences.
More...

The effective R0 of "low risk people" is the same for "high risk people". R0 is the infection rate. Human hosts have the same infection rate. In fact the effective R0 for people with few symptoms many be higher because they will still go around town infecting others while the sick will shelter at home or be in a facility.

Even Pardo outlined the best course of action in his paper is Strategy 2C which is starting with a 60 day lockdown for everyone.
 
1. Show me where Prado said start with a 60 day lockdown...
that conflicts with the abstract and his summary.

2. R0 is based state when all individuals are susceptible.

But... when many people already have immunities the effective R0 of low risk groups would naturally be lower. That is what we need to measure. You need to stop lecturing me with basic shit...you keep lecturing and your lectures are basic shit and not applicable to what I have been saying. I could make a mistake but you have to stop assuming you are correct... I have been way ahead of you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number (sometimes called basic reproductive ratio, or incorrectly basic reproductive rate, and denoted R0, pronounced R nought or R zero[17]) of an infection can be thought of as the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[18] The definition describes the state where no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".[19] The basic reproduction number is not to be confused with the effective reproduction numberR, which is the number of cases generated in the current state of a population, which does not have to be the uninfected state. By definition, R0 cannot be modified through vaccination campaigns. Also, it is important to note that R0 is a dimensionless number and not a rate, which would have units of time[20] like doubling time.[21]

gwb-trading said:
The effective R0 of "low risk people" is the same for "high risk people". R0 is the infection rate. Human hosts have the same infection rate. In fact the effective R0 for people with few symptoms many be higher because they will still go around town infecting others while the sick will shelter at home or be in a facility.

Even Pardo outlined the best course of action in his paper is Strategy 2C which is starting with a 60 day lockdown for everyone.
More...
 
jem said:
1. Show me where Prado said start with a 60 day lockdown...
that conflicts with the abstract and his summary.
More...

Take a look at slides 26 to 32 in Prado's presentation. It goes into the lockdown time frames and tradeoffs.
 
I already played that game with you and I explained that prado presented the stats and the stats and that if you look a them you realize that the low risk group should be out at 30 days or less because most likely that would result in lower total deaths and depression and everything negative associated with a shutdown..


so you need to explain what you are seeing in the slides.

gwb-trading said:
Take a look at slides 26 to 32 in Prado's presentation. It goes into the lockdown time frames and tradeoffs.
More...
 
I was trading before... so I will write this more clearly.

Please provide the exact statement or data that you see to support your statement about 60 day lockdowns.

you keep acting like Prado supports your position... When he calls your position mistaken.

2c... the scenario says lockdown begins 60 days after the first case.

Then using that scenario he reviews outcomes in his model comparing

Lockdown lasts 30 or 60 days, and
–
Lockdown is lifted on low risk group only, or
–
Lockdown is lifted on both groups

Anyway you slice it the data does not support locking down low risk groups when you also look at the harm caused by lockdown of low risk groups. In the short you save relatively few deaths from Covid... and you risk all the damage that shutdown causes... and point out you may have a second wave worse than the first.. Whereas if you let the low risk group out you start depressing the effective R0 as you get closer to herd immunity.

Which is why Prado concludes as follows....

"However, government statistics do not account for the loss of lives and livelihoods
derived from universal lockdowns
–
The objective of lockdowns should be to minimize the total loss of life, not only deaths directly
caused by the pandemic"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top