At least they wrote a paper about it instead of just bitching on the internet. Where's your paper? Why not cite them and disprove their premise..
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
COVID-19
- Thread starter Treetop Flyer
- Start date
I hate this thread, barely read it, but what do you think Economists deal with? You realize how many fields of Economics there are, right? Behavoiral, Environmental, Financial (I assume this is what you're thinking of them all as), Public Policy, Medical, Ethical, Educational, Agricultural, Athletic, Immigration, National Defense, etc. If there's a field, there's generally a way an economist can apply at least some economic principles into it (at its core: supply, demand, marginal propensity for X, sunk costs, rationality/irrationality, surplses, shortages, floors/ceilings, public/private goods, social costs, inefficient pricing, price discrimination; I could go on almost endlessly.).
These guys did it for us.
A network-based explanation of why most COVID-19 infection curves are linear
For many countries a plain-eye inspection of the COVID-19 infection curves reveals a remarkable linear growth over extended time periods. This observation is practically impossible to understand with traditional epidemiological models. These, to make them expressible in compact mathematical...
It is peer reviewed, not a working paper. It is written by experts in the pertinent field, not outside experts with no understanding of the underlying dynamics. It comes to a completely different conclusion.
For many countries a plain-eye inspection of the COVID-19 infection curves reveals a remarkable linear growth over extended time periods. This observation is practically impossible to understand with traditional epidemiological models. These, to make them expressible in compact mathematical form, typically ignore the structure of real contact networks that are essential in the characteristic spreading dynamics of COVID-19. Here we show that by properly taking some relevant network features into account, linear growth can be naturally explained. Further, the effect of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), like national lockdowns, can be modeled with a remarkable degree of precision without fitting or fine-tuning of parameters.
The working paper used traditional epidemiological models, and was full of parameter fitting. It made a bunch of illogical assumptions. I bet it gets shredded if submitted for peer review.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
They might as well have bitched on the internet. The paper is crap.
I don't have a paper because I'm not an epidemiologist. But there's this organization called the CDC that reviews papers written by actual experts and puts out guidelines. So there's your contradiction.
If I want to review research on the spread of infectious disease, I know enough to make sure that the authors have the right level of education and experience. And given the opinion of a panel of economists vs CDC guidelines that are put out based on research by actual medical and infectious disease experts, I'm going to trust the latter.
Are you seriously trying to argue that one needs a PhD in medicine in order to determine who is a credible expert?
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Where in there is a study of infectious disease and the effectiveness of mitigation measures on public health?
You’d make a fine economist.
Last edited:
If you do the math, 6% of 161,392 is 9684.
So by the CDC numbers, up to August 26 only 9684 people died solely from COVID. In the other 151,704 COVID was only one of many contributing factors with the vast majority having multiple additional causes.
So by the CDC numbers, up to August 26 only 9684 people died solely from COVID. In the other 151,704 COVID was only one of many contributing factors with the vast majority having multiple additional causes.
It's my undergraduate degree and if they ever gave me a chance, I'd study it more.You’d make a fine economist.
I hate that I'm wading into this dumpster fire of a thread, but that's almost exactly the comorbidity rate in the general population. Comorbidities are add'l underlying health conditions. At the time of death from.... (insert any cause), most people have 1 or more. This data isn't novel, a surprise, or anything else. Read more here if interested in comorbidity studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1466875/table/t1/?report=objectonly
I can’t find it now but a couple of days ago when Oahu reentered a paranoid COVID lockdown, one of the local TV news shows pointed out that there were 100 more deaths from all causes in Hawaii during May through July 2019 than there were this year during the same period.
Hawaii has done very, very well when you look at excess deaths (compared to historic norms). Other states and localities, not so much: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
Not according to the governor and mayors of the islands. According to them, we are on the verge of an extinction event and must lockdown from now to forever.
COVID exacerbates many medical conditions (ie COPD) leading to fatalities that otherwise would have not occurred under normal situations. While some part of that number would have died regardless of COVID-19 within a similar time frame, far more than 6 percent are dead now that would have not been dead if not for COVID.
Herman Cain weighs in on the subject from the grave. Interesting perspective, to be sure.
Sorry, it looks like the ghouls who run Herman's account deleted their original tweet.