Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f (/thread-19195.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f (/thread-19195.html)
Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - 82lsju - 03-23-2020
Quote:Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist, began analyzing the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide in January and correctly calculated that China would get through the worst of its coronavirus outbreak long before many health experts had predicted. Now he foresees a similar outcome in the United States and the rest of the world.
While many epidemiologists are warning of months, or even years, of massive social disruption and millions of deaths, Levitt says the data simply don't support such a dire scenario — especially in areas where reasonable social distancing measures are in place.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-22/coronavirus-outbreak-nobel-laureate
RE: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - burger - 03-23-2020
Tell that to the doctors in New York City.
RE: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - OutsiderFan - 03-23-2020
I see three flaws in this Levitt guy's assessment
1. Was his 80,000 case prediction for China a number of cases reported, or actual number of cases that would exist?
I don't trust China's numbers much at all. No way would they only be 80,000 if reported accurately.
2. The notion of appropriate social distancing varies by location.
China was locking people in houses and not allowing anyone out at all. Italy's first effort was to tell people to stay home but they could still go out as long as they were 6ft apart. That didn't work well, so Italy went even further.
3. Sure, we'll be "fine" and eventually it will pass, but what is the definition of fine?
Is it 100k dead? 500k dead? 1 million dead? Is it 10% unemployment? Is it 2% inflation? 5%?
RE: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - chrisk - 03-23-2020
(03-23-2020, 10:05 AM)burger Wrote: Tell that to the doctors in New York City.
The US has not enforced social distancing anywhere near as completely as China did. And the jury is out on whether China will be hit with another wave. If they do, they have shown they have the tools to shut it down.
RE: Why this Nobel laureate predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: ‘We’re going to be f - 82lsju - 03-23-2020
(03-23-2020, 10:54 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I see three flaws in this Levitt guy's assessment
2. The notion of appropriate social distancing varies by location.
China was locking people in houses and not allowing anyone out at all. Italy's first effort was to tell people to stay home but they could still go out as long as they were 6ft apart. That didn't work well, so Italy went even further.
I think that the US is extremely unlikely to enforce a real lock down unless things get very bad, in which case it will be too late