When will the pandemic end?

I hope this doesn't lead to wishful thinking. But this study is interesting. Keep in mind that it's purely statistical. And always remember:

"All models are wrong. But some models are useful" -George Box
​

So don't be mislead. There are many models and this is one of them

What this means is that, if the current tendency continues, on May 24, of all people who will ever be infected with Covid 19 in the U.S. 99% of them will already have bee infected. And that the last person infected in the U.S. will be infected by September 9. So that would be the day the pandemic ends.






https://people.sutd.edu.sg/jianxi_luo/public_html/COVID19PredictionPaper.pdf

But this would only happen if the current safety measures are maintained. Any changes are likely to delay this. It does not take into account dumb governors or mayors who start opening their states and cities too soon. Doing this will surely extend the life of the pandemic.

 

If liberals see this data, do you suppose that they will suddenly change their minds about lockdowns? I don't. I expect that the goal posts will constantly change with "until there's an effective vaccine" being the new conditionality...

 

Of course not! Because I expect liberals to understand this data and know that its the lockdowns what are keeping us on this track.

We enter the month of May with most cities under shut down, and most people understanding the rules of social distancing. Keeping this the same would mean that, according to this model, this would be 100% over on September 9. But every time anybody changes their mind about "lockdowns", that date is extended.

Just like every time a community adopts a shut down, the time left for this to end is reduced. Problem is that, from what we are seeing right now, reductions are slight, and policies that will extend it are more frequent.

 

Good data, I'm interested in seeing how true this model will be.

 

That "the U.S. is crossing X, Y Z milestone of COVID19" is a carefully crafted distortion, not surprised. Would be just as fallacious as claiming "Italy, Sweden, Belgium and Ireland just crossed X Deaths!" and done for exactly the same reason.

Here is today's Real Clear Politics World/U.S. chart that includes ALL the meaningful data in one place so it can't be easily cherry-picked and manipulated. If you are getting your data from a source that is not as comprehensive, or see people constantly pushing this or that singular statistic ("U.S. just crossed X deaths!" for example), consider getting your information from a more objective source, especially one that reports deaths per million. AS ALWAYS DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

Here are my conclusions with respect to the U.S., mostly unchanged from before the weekend:

1. Within 20 or so of the U.S. states, COVID19 is a localized mild "bad cold" outbreak that can hasten the deaths of people already at death's door. Thus, any attempts to stretch draconian measures over those states by those with bad political intent is transparently malefic. In other words, with respect to those 20 or so states, there is no rational possibility of difference of opinion, well-meaning but erroneous concerns, etc. None. Those who persist in such "one size fit all" fallacies in a land mass the size of the U.S., especially in light of drastically changed models and vast changes in information over the last two months, can now be presumed to be bad actors expressing even FELONIOUS intent. To be crystal clear, expressing advocacy of draconian measures in those states is no longer a viable, reasonable adult position.

2. On the other side of the charts, a massive disparity persists between ~10 large NE, Democrat, public union, near bankrupt states, the cities within them, and the other ~40 states. A rough approximation of relative death counts is ~50k deaths in large Democrat cities, ~20k deaths within the other 40 states. To me, combined with the well-known abstract (loophole-ridden) and indefinite CDC methodologies a prime facie case for overcounting in the 10 states. The numbers simply DO NOT ADD UP. Draw your own conclusions of course.

3. Regardless of what one decides on "2" above, a reasonable conclusion for virus mitigation is, again, to utterly abandon "one size fits all" measures regardless of where they are occurring, the "10" states or the "40."

4. But to reiterate the most important point, at least where the U.S. is concerned, advocacy of "one size fits all" statistical measuring of the whole U.S., and especially advocacy of "one size fits all" draconian mitigation measures, is no longer a reasonable, adult stance. So ANY person, group, media who persists in it is presumed to have BAD INTENT where objectivity and accuracy are concerned.

 

As George Box would say: it will be completely wrong . But it's useful.

 

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

 

Logic dictates that once more people remove themselves from isolation cases of the virus should increase. Therefore, starting about 14 days from mid-May we should once again see an increase, which equates to you needing a new chart... I would almost a expect a graph of the chart to look like a "V" with the next wave starting as the first wave almost got under control, i.e. when the first vertical stroke of the "V" reaches the initial bottom. Governments will be loathe to call people back from isolation, therefore the pandemic will extend well into the fall months instead of ending in late summer. If the virus makes it into the winter without a vaccine being found the body count could be atrocious. Businesses that clamored to reopen will shutter for good. Eventually we will all look back at the states that reopened early wondering why?

 

I completely agree. This is why there is a new chart every day.

The prediction will always look like this one. But the actual data will likely look like a W

 

This is the chart for data on May 2. I think the most useful way to look at it is the date when there are no more cases. We will likely have the virus under control before that. But it's a parameter that is easier to visualize.

This one has the Pandemic completely gone in our country on October 1st.

 

The second wave of Spanish flu killed five times as many people as the first.

 

Let's just hope for the best then.

 

Another fear-peddling technique used by bad actors who are politically motivated is wild speculations and weak correlations re continuation of COVID.

There is -0- credible scientific evidence, LESS than -0- evidence to expect Spanish Flu results.

There is -0- credible science evidence to expect some extrapolation of March-April results in the U.S. into the rest of 2020.

Now, you can certainly believe that those things will happen, just like you may believe dice will roll a certain way, but there is no credible scientific evidence for it.

Folks, hold partisan, politically motivated FEAR MERCHANTS' feet to the fire and make them ground their claims scientifically, not based on shady, distant correlations, not faulty models of the sort we've already seen to much of in this Viral Moral Panic.

 

Science now believes that the "second wave" was actually a very mutated version of the first virus. At that time, they did not have the science or medical care we have today. Also, many of the nurses to care for the sick were sent off to war to care for soldiers. Going by a pandemic from 100 years ago is not a good idea.

Since you seem to have so much info on the Spanish flu, you probably already knew this.

 

Flattening the curve only slowed the rate of infection and made the pandemic last longer or at least that's what the models had shown. So if we weren't locked down, we would reach the end of the pandemic before then.

 

Each time you Trumpsters have downplayed this pandemic, it turned out you were mistaken.

How much death does it take for you to admit that Trump has failed ?

 

So no reply about your misinformation on the spanish flu. Was that Trump's fault too?

Figures

 

And the number of infected would overwhelm most hospitals around the country. And the number of dead would be in the millions.

It would not help us avoid a financial disaster. That would be the "Nazi death camp" solution, because it would turn the whole country into a death camp by full-fledged eugenics.

Worst thing is that if Republican Governors don't get their act together soon, this could extend into next year and Trump, if reelected, is very capable of doing something like that in the end. So the debacle of the economy would be complete, and just about everybody would see somebody close to them die.

 

Are you talking about the 97% which in the last chart would be due on May 21? It was May 16 before states started opening.

If that's the case you are not understanding the chart. There would be 3% left IF we kept the current lock down measures. If we altered them slightly, it might or it might not increase them (there are experts who can estimate that). If we completely open the country, that 3% could go higher than 100%. Which is what actually happened in some cities in 1918, BTW.

I think it might be possible to start partially opening the country at 3%. That would be on May 21 right now. It would have been May 16 if some states hadn't started opening now.. If they had waited less than two more weeks, then it might have made more sense.

 

You're contradicting what you stated in the original topic of this thread. It states the date the virus would end, but then you say that undoing the restrictions will not allow that to happen by the date. But now you agree that if we hadn't locked down, it would've been over quicker. Which is it? If it runs it course quicker, it will be over quicker.

 

You are confusing two things. In a typical pandemic, if we act as if nothing had happened in the beginning and everybody carried on as usual, the number of dead would have been in the millions and the pandemic would have ran out. That's the herd immunity theory. Which has a lot of holes in it anyway.

Basically the assumption being that you discard all the people who can't survive it. The elderly, people with diabetes, anybody with pulmonary problems... etc. It ends relatively quickly because we know who is infected: which is everybody. But in reality that's not going to happen. What is going to happen is that we will try to save people. Unless you plan on forcing everybody out to a concentration camp so you can get them infected (consistent with right-wing authoritarianism a.k.a. Nazism). So we won't know who's infected. Therefore, the epidemic takes longer to eradicate. And every time you open you kill several thousand more people, and you close... but the eradication will take much longer because... we don't know how many people would die if we open again.

 

You've now gone too far out in left field. We're talking about re-opening the economy and how it wouldn't allow that date shown in the OP to be the end, and now you've gone back to the beginning and used bad model assumptions to prove........... well I'm not sure what.

So the question is, why would the pandemic not have ended on that date if we re-open but end on that date if we don't, assuming the model has merit. That goes against the whole concept of the curve.

 

What assumption are you talking about?

Because when you open, the curve goes back up! And if the curve moves up, the "prediction" line takes longer to come back down closer to zero even when you shut down again. It's called a "second wave".

 

They aren't here to have a straightforward discussion about this virus, but you've figured that out by now.

 

It's already over, it blew thru Southern California in December and the first half of January. Can anyone name me a hospital with proof that is "overwhelmed" with Covid-19 patients?