[CardinalSagehen]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

[CardinalSagehen]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any simulation that can or has been done that would show where we would be without lockdowns, masks, and other things that reduce spread to prevent medical systems from collapse?

It’s easy to see numbers that seem low and claim there is no reason to take precautions because they are low, but the fact is the reason they are low is because the precautions are taken.

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any simulation that can or has been done that would show where we would be without lockdowns, masks, and other things that reduce spread to prevent medical systems from collapse?

It’s easy to see numbers that seem low and claim there is no reason to take precautions because they are low, but the fact is the reason they are low is because the precautions are taken.

[Farm93]

Is there any simulation that can or has been done that would show where we would be without lockdowns, masks, and other things that reduce spread to prevent medical systems from collapse?

It’s easy to see numbers that seem low and claim there is no reason to take precautions because they are low, but the fact is the reason they are low is because the precautions are taken.

Most of the models that the different groups use include some ability to estimate past and future deaths, though I don't think many of them are easily accessible for free to the general public.

The Worldometers site does have projection charts.   On those charts you can see projections with and without easing and/or with or without universal masks.   

Those two variables alone give some insights into just how bad our Fall 2020 might become for the USA.

However, in all cases the models are trying to estimate a past that did not happen or a future that might not happen.   So for anyone not inclined to believe stats, models & forecasts it would be hard to use any of the models as persuasive evidence.

For me the more compelling evidence continues to be the empirical evidence
Japan, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand & Australia
vs
Mexico, Brazil, Russia

Back to the models
Another challenge is that stats and models are often easy to massage to fit your narrative.  
For example, President Trump generally rejected the forecasts, especially in ~May when they projected deaths in that 100K-240K range.
However President Trump also embraced those same models to claim he saved millions of lives because the models noted if we made no modifications then millions might have died.

[Farm93]

Is there any simulation that can or has been done that would show where we would be without lockdowns, masks, and other things that reduce spread to prevent medical systems from collapse?

It’s easy to see numbers that seem low and claim there is no reason to take precautions because they are low, but the fact is the reason they are low is because the precautions are taken.

Most of the models that the different groups use include some ability to estimate past and future deaths, though I don't think many of them are easily accessible for free to the general public.

The Worldometers site does have projection charts.   On those charts you can see projections with and without easing and/or with or without universal masks.   

Those two variables alone give some insights into just how bad our Fall 2020 might become for the USA.

However, in all cases the models are trying to estimate a past that did not happen or a future that might not happen.   So for anyone not inclined to believe stats, models & forecasts it would be hard to use any of the models as persuasive evidence.

For me the more compelling evidence continues to be the empirical evidence
Japan, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand & Australia
vs
Mexico, Brazil, Russia

Back to the models
Another challenge is that stats and models are often easy to massage to fit your narrative.  
For example, President Trump generally rejected the forecasts, especially in ~May when they projected deaths in that 100K-240K range.
However President Trump also embraced those same models to claim he saved millions of lives because the models noted if we made no modifications then millions might have died.

[CardinalSagehen]

Proposed revised headline for Paulson's Twitter feed:
Stanford '21 | ANTI-Lockdowns | PRO-Lockdown Corners

[CardinalSagehen]

Proposed revised headline for Paulson's Twitter feed:
Stanford '21 | ANTI-Lockdowns | PRO-Lockdown Corners

[teejers1]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

Of what you copied here (I have no interest in reading Paulson's other tweets), I will offer 2 points of semi-defense.  First, the reaction to the Kirk Cousins comments was WAY overblown - I heard the exchange which, IIRC, may be distilled to this:  "I wear masks indoors; but I don't worry about catching the virus myself; don't think it poses much of a health risk to me; and if it does, so be it."  It didn't strike me as controversial in the least (but again, there is a lot of conformity-think going around these days).  Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

[teejers1]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

Of what you copied here (I have no interest in reading Paulson's other tweets), I will offer 2 points of semi-defense.  First, the reaction to the Kirk Cousins comments was WAY overblown - I heard the exchange which, IIRC, may be distilled to this:  "I wear masks indoors; but I don't worry about catching the virus myself; don't think it poses much of a health risk to me; and if it does, so be it."  It didn't strike me as controversial in the least (but again, there is a lot of conformity-think going around these days).  Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

[OutsiderFan]

By far the best way to see Covid death is in the additional deaths over average. It’s quite clear by that measure how much death it is causing.

[OutsiderFan]

By far the best way to see Covid death is in the additional deaths over average. It’s quite clear by that measure how much death it is causing.

[M T]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be specified on the death certificate."

[M T]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be specified on the death certificate."

[lex24]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be  specified  on  the  death  certificate."

One of the things that bothers me is the lack or transparency on reporting. “Number of deaths” is not particularly telling.  Nor are guidelines that indicate “a” cause particularly helpful.  I have no idea if deaths are under or over reported. My guess is - both.  But I think having specific information of the deaths and hospitalizations. are important. Starting with age.  Then comorbidities. And not just generalities, specifics. What comorbidities. Gender.  Ethnicity/race.  Socioeconomic factors etc. A true in-depth analysis of whom this impacts the most and who is most at risk.  That way, perhaps we can start looking at more targeted approaches.

[lex24]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be  specified  on  the  death  certificate."

One of the things that bothers me is the lack or transparency on reporting. “Number of deaths” is not particularly telling.  Nor are guidelines that indicate “a” cause particularly helpful.  I have no idea if deaths are under or over reported. My guess is - both.  But I think having specific information of the deaths and hospitalizations. are important. Starting with age.  Then comorbidities. And not just generalities, specifics. What comorbidities. Gender.  Ethnicity/race.  Socioeconomic factors etc. A true in-depth analysis of whom this impacts the most and who is most at risk.  That way, perhaps we can start looking at more targeted approaches.

[chrisk]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be  specified  on  the  death  certificate."

One of the things that bothers me is the lack or transparency on reporting. “Number of deaths” is not particularly telling.  Nor are guidelines that indicate “a” cause particularly helpful.  I have no idea if deaths are under or over reported. My guess is - both.  But I think having specific information of the deaths and hospitalizations. are important. Starting with age.  Then comorbidities. And not just generalities, specifics. What comorbidities. Gender.  Ethnicity/race.  Socioeconomic factors etc. A true in-depth analysis of whom this impacts the most and who is most at risk.  That way, perhaps we can start looking at more targeted approaches.

In addition to the variety of approaches taken in various US states, the US can look at 180+ countries to see what has worked and what hasn’t. Many Americans are not very committed to making personal sacrifices on behalf of the whole.

Some of the recent US studies, such as the one that identified restaurants as a possible venue for spreading, may help tailor the restrictions. However, the anti-mask attitude among many Americans hurts any plan in the US.

[chrisk]

 
Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

Rather than speculating, we can read how the CDC counts COVID deaths.  They don't perform the autopsies or sign the death certificates.  They base their numbers on what is in the death certificates.  Their guidance to the doctors or health officers responsible for filling those out can be found at
  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/coding-...orting.htm

Their guidance (your "some additional rigor") is

When COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it is important that it be reported on the death certificate...

It is not anything like "anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death".

In mid-May, the guidance was basically the same: "If COVID-19 is determined to be a cause of death, it should be reported on the death certificate."
In April, the Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance had "If COVID–19 played a role in the death, this condition should be  specified  on  the  death  certificate."

One of the things that bothers me is the lack or transparency on reporting. “Number of deaths” is not particularly telling.  Nor are guidelines that indicate “a” cause particularly helpful.  I have no idea if deaths are under or over reported. My guess is - both.  But I think having specific information of the deaths and hospitalizations. are important. Starting with age.  Then comorbidities. And not just generalities, specifics. What comorbidities. Gender.  Ethnicity/race.  Socioeconomic factors etc. A true in-depth analysis of whom this impacts the most and who is most at risk.  That way, perhaps we can start looking at more targeted approaches.

In addition to the variety of approaches taken in various US states, the US can look at 180+ countries to see what has worked and what hasn’t. Many Americans are not very committed to making personal sacrifices on behalf of the whole.

Some of the recent US studies, such as the one that identified restaurants as a possible venue for spreading, may help tailor the restrictions. However, the anti-mask attitude among many Americans hurts any plan in the US.

[akiddoc]

"In addition to the variety of approaches taken in various US states, the US can look at 180+ countries to see what has worked and what hasn’t. Many Americans are not very committed to making personal sacrifices on behalf of the whole. Some of the recent US studies, such as the one that identified restaurants as a possible venue for spreading, may help tailor the restrictions. However, the anti-mask attitude among many Americans hurts any plan in the US"


Other countries have a more unified sense of community. People are willing to sacrifice for the good of the many. That's an uncommon American sentiment.

[akiddoc]

"In addition to the variety of approaches taken in various US states, the US can look at 180+ countries to see what has worked and what hasn’t. Many Americans are not very committed to making personal sacrifices on behalf of the whole. Some of the recent US studies, such as the one that identified restaurants as a possible venue for spreading, may help tailor the restrictions. However, the anti-mask attitude among many Americans hurts any plan in the US"


Other countries have a more unified sense of community. People are willing to sacrifice for the good of the many. That's an uncommon American sentiment.