FB: American Rivers Conference

[5 Words or Less]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a "Stay at Home" order in place to combat the virus's spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the "six feet apart" rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

[hazzben]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a "Stay at Home" order in place to combat the virus's spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the "six feet apart" rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

C.F.S.

Can't Fix Stupid

[OzJohnnie]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a “Stay at Home” order in place to combat the virus’s spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the “six feet apart” rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

C.F.S.

Can't Fix Stupid

Interestingly, of the five boroughs I think that Manhattan has the fewest positive results.  Queens and the nearly suburban Staten Island are the worst.  I was just reading that yesterday and was surprised.  I tried to find the stats again just now (somewhere on the New York health website) but couldn't find it again.

EDIT: Yeah, I found the stats.  Manhattan has 11k people identified (of 1.6m residents) while Queens has 2.5x that many (of 2.2m).  Probably not surprising upon consideration as Manhattanites largely live in appartments and can live an isolated lifestyle with ease.

[doolittledog]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a "Stay at Home" order in place to combat the virus's spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the "six feet apart" rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

C.F.S.

Can't Fix Stupid

Interestingly, of the five boroughs I think that Manhattan has the fewest positive results.  Queens and the nearly suburban Staten Island are the worst.  I was just reading that yesterday and was surprised.  I tried to find the stats again just now (somewhere on the New York health website) but couldn't find it again.

EDIT: Yeah, I found the stats.  Manhattan has 11k people identified (of 1.6m residents) while Queens has 2.5x that many (of 2.2m). Probably not surprising upon consideration as Manhattanites largely live in appartments and can live an isolated lifestyle with ease.

Economic factors in play there.  Like you say, Manhattanites can better self isolate.  Brooklyn is more working class.  Their "essential workers" still have to get out and about which will spread the virus faster in their immediate area. 

I'm curious how this will play out with colleges.  Most schools around the upper Midwest are tuition dependent.  If they are forced to reimburse room and board for students, or lose enrollment numbers, or lose a good chunk of their endowment due to a market collapse, this could be bad news.  If students aren't allowed on campus next fall they wouldn't be paying room and board, which is important revenue for schools.  D3 schools have a large percentage of students that are athletes.  If there are no sports you could see lower numbers enrolling at D3 schools.  Finances are already tight at most area schools.  If they lose 50% of their endowment value that would have a major impact on finances. 

If I can't watch college football this fall, my wife will expect me to do more around the house...we need college football 

[jamtod]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a "Stay at Home" order in place to combat the virus's spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the "six feet apart" rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

C.F.S.

Can't Fix Stupid

Interestingly, of the five boroughs I think that Manhattan has the fewest positive results.  Queens and the nearly suburban Staten Island are the worst.  I was just reading that yesterday and was surprised.  I tried to find the stats again just now (somewhere on the New York health website) but couldn't find it again.

EDIT: Yeah, I found the stats.  Manhattan has 11k people identified (of 1.6m residents) while Queens has 2.5x that many (of 2.2m). Probably not surprising upon consideration as Manhattanites largely live in appartments and can live an isolated lifestyle with ease.

Economic factors in play there.  Like you say, Manhattanites can better self isolate.  Brooklyn is more working class.  Their "essential workers" still have to get out and about which will spread the virus faster in their immediate area. 

Yep. I saw a map and analysis somewhere that showed major hotspots in areas where a substantial number of JFK employees lived.

[hazzben]

Manhattanites set a high bar

As New York remains the epicenter of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the United States, many residents are continuing to go out and about, despite the strict social distancing guidelines and a "Stay at Home" order in place to combat the virus's spread.  Dozens of people were recently photographed walking through Central Park, noticeably breaking the "six feet apart" rule recommended by health and government officials.

https://people.com/travel/central-park-still-crowded-with-people-despite-stay-at-home-and-social-distancing-orders-in-nyc/

C.F.S.

Can't Fix Stupid

Interestingly, of the five boroughs I think that Manhattan has the fewest positive results.  Queens and the nearly suburban Staten Island are the worst.  I was just reading that yesterday and was surprised.  I tried to find the stats again just now (somewhere on the New York health website) but couldn't find it again.

EDIT: Yeah, I found the stats.  Manhattan has 11k people identified (of 1.6m residents) while Queens has 2.5x that many (of 2.2m). Probably not surprising upon consideration as Manhattanites largely live in appartments and can live an isolated lifestyle with ease.

Economic factors in play there.  Like you say, Manhattanites can better self isolate.  Brooklyn is more working class.  Their "essential workers" still have to get out and about which will spread the virus faster in their immediate area. 

Yep. I saw a map and analysis somewhere that showed major hotspots in areas where a substantial number of JFK employees lived.

Those other locations also often require taking public transit into work. Talking with customers in Manhattan, they see a trend with those who have relied on subway system to commute. Also why NJ has gotten hit so hard in some instances. When I was out in NYC on business in early March there were literally like 12 cases in the entire city. It's exploded since then 

[hazzben]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

[jamtod]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

Yeah, I've seen some issue with the modeling based on the presence or lack of SAH/SIP orders, when in actuality the same measures are taking place and have been for a while. This also leads some skeptics to say "see the numbers are starting to change, we didn't even need to take action" when in reality, we've been cancelling and avoiding large gatherings since early March.

[OzJohnnie]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

Or the NY media could be right for the wrong reason...

[OzJohnnie]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

Yeah, I've seen some issue with the modeling based on the presence or lack of SAH/SIP orders, when in actuality the same measures are taking place and have been for a while. This also leads some skeptics to say "see the numbers are starting to change, we didn't even need to take action" when in reality, we've been cancelling and avoiding large gatherings since early March.

I won't get started on this one other than to say if one thing comes out of this I hope that it's a general realisation on how horrid forecasting is when the assumptions are entirely untested and nothing more than guesses.  These models still are no better than a five-year-old drawing graphs with a crayon because there is insufficient understanding of the virus to model with any degree of certainty.  And the fact that these models were treated as authoritatively insightful rather than little better than wild-a$$-guesses should forever be a shame to the data science community and a dark stain on the resumes of the people who created and promoted them.

This isn't to say the bug isn't serious but instead is a comment that the modelling was unprofessional.  There are a number of different "reasonable" models which fit the data and that only require slight changes in the assumptions to spit out wildly different results.  We won't know how this bug behaved for well over a year yet.  And the one thing I know for sure is that how it behaved and what the models predicted will be so far apart, and I bet obviously so, that we'll wonder how we ever got swept up in believing them in the first place.

[jamtod]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

Yeah, I've seen some issue with the modeling based on the presence or lack of SAH/SIP orders, when in actuality the same measures are taking place and have been for a while. This also leads some skeptics to say "see the numbers are starting to change, we didn't even need to take action" when in reality, we've been cancelling and avoiding large gatherings since early March.

I won't get started on this one other than to say if one thing comes out of this I hope that it's a general realisation on how horrid forecasting is when the assumptions are entirely untested and nothing more than guesses.  These models still are no better than a five-year-old drawing graphs with a crayon because there is insufficient understanding of the virus to model with any degree of certainty.  And the fact that these models were treated as authoritatively insightful rather than little better than wild-a$$-guesses should forever be a shame to the data science community and a dark stain on the resumes of the people who created and promoted them.

This isn't to say the bug isn't serious but instead is a comment that the modelling was unprofessional.  There are a number of different "reasonable" models which fit the data and that only require slight changes in the assumptions to spit out wildly different results.  We won't know how this bug behaved for well over a year yet.  And the one thing I know for sure is that how it behaved and what the models predicted will be so far apart, and I bet obviously so, that we'll wonder how we ever got swept up in believing them in the first place.

Logan Hansen to the white courtesy phone. Logan Hansen. White courtesy phone.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Dr. Fauci had a call with Govenor's of Iowa and Nebraska. Said there was a lot of public/media reaction to their lack of "Stay/Shelter at Home" edicts that was misinformed. He's satisfied both states, while not issuing formal orders, are essentially following similar best practices of other states. The NY media calling Iowan's dumb can chill out for a moment 

Yeah, I've seen some issue with the modeling based on the presence or lack of SAH/SIP orders, when in actuality the same measures are taking place and have been for a while. This also leads some skeptics to say "see the numbers are starting to change, we didn't even need to take action" when in reality, we've been cancelling and avoiding large gatherings since early March.

I won't get started on this one other than to say if one thing comes out of this I hope that it's a general realisation on how horrid forecasting is when the assumptions are entirely untested and nothing more than guesses.  These models still are no better than a five-year-old drawing graphs with a crayon because there is insufficient understanding of the virus to model with any degree of certainty.  And the fact that these models were treated as authoritatively insightful rather than little better than wild-a$$-guesses should forever be a shame to the data science community and a dark stain on the resumes of the people who created and promoted them.

This isn't to say the bug isn't serious but instead is a comment that the modelling was unprofessional.  There are a number of different "reasonable" models which fit the data and that only require slight changes in the assumptions to spit out wildly different results.  We won't know how this bug behaved for well over a year yet.  And the one thing I know for sure is that how it behaved and what the models predicted will be so far apart, and I bet obviously so, that we'll wonder how we ever got swept up in believing them in the first place.

Correction:  We won't EVER know.  Due to grossly inadequate testing at "diagnosis", AND grossly inadequate testing among the dead, we will NEVER know how many people caught the virus, how many died from it, and therefore what the death rate was.  When the potential evidence was simply never collected in the first place, past events are forever unknowable.

[OzJohnnie]

Correction:  We won't EVER know.  Due to grossly inadequate testing at "diagnosis", AND grossly inadequate testing among the dead, we will NEVER know how many people caught the virus, how many died from it, and therefore what the death rate was.  When the potential evidence was simply never collected in the first place, past events are forever unknowable.

Sigh.  Name one viral outbreak where your tiring conditions for perfection have ever been met.  In fact, hold yourself under that same spotlight and name one time in your life where you have perfect information.

EDIT: What's doubly entertaining with your outburst is that is supports my point re: this messianic reliance on models which have grossly untested assumptions.  You can't have it both ways, you know.  Emotionally you can but not logically.

[OzJohnnie]

For what it's worth, and admittedly it isn't a lot until blood testing is widespread, I read an interesting paper on the Italian experience last night.  This guy argued that the infectiousness of the virus is massively higher than normal 'flu' type bugs (and anything anyone has expected to date for this bug) but the lethality is similar to the flu.  The challenge is that we get an entire flu season's worth of illnesses in just a couple weeks and that burst overwhelms the hospital system.  Our hospital systems have grown to just manage the flu season (or in Italy to just be a little short during the normal flu season) and a burst illness like this although on aggregate looks similar in behaviour is a nasty challenge in the short period when it's sweeping through the population.

He drew his argument from two small towns in Italy which had been fully tested at different times in their infection cycle.  Now the university/institute/clinic or whatever he is at is organising a widespread blood antibody test to see who was infected or not and if the numbers line up with the model.  I guess that's complimentary to the arguments being put forward by Stanford and Oxford (what is it with the 'fords' and contrarian thinking?).  If it is massively infectious, though, and it's been in the wild since Oct/Nov which is looking increasingly likely then where are all the sufferers before March?

Anyways, regardless of which models prove to be more prescient (and so many have been created that inevitably one will look like a genius, sort of like election surveys after the election) I hope we have a vaccine worked out before next winter when this may sweep through again like the other bugs in circulation.  I wonder if anyone is able to do post-mortem sampling on the unidentified flu victims since Nov/Dec when some argue it first reached the west.  I wonder if hospitals/labs keep test samples as practice.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Correction:  We won't EVER know.  Due to grossly inadequate testing at "diagnosis", AND grossly inadequate testing among the dead, we will NEVER know how many people caught the virus, how many died from it, and therefore what the death rate was.  When the potential evidence was simply never collected in the first place, past events are forever unknowable.

Sigh.  Name one viral outbreak where your tiring conditions for perfection have ever been met.  In fact, hold yourself under that same spotlight and name one time in your life where you have perfect information.

EDIT: What's doubly entertaining with your outburst is that is supports my point re: this messianic reliance on models which have grossly untested assumptions.  You can't have it both ways, you know.  Emotionally you can but not logically.

Relax on the 'sigh'.  You are misunderstanding my point if you think we disagree. 

Of course we never have perfect information, but we can have vastly better information than is currently true in the US - from everything I've read, South Korea, for one example, has vastly better information than the US.  My elder son's father-in-law is an RN - it took ELEVEN days for his coronavirus test results to come back!  (Thank God, they were negative , so he's finally back at work trying to save lives.) 

I'm not expecting or asking for 'perfection' - just less total incompetence than we are currently getting from this administration.  WH memos recently leaked that some were fully aware of the potential scope of the pandemic in JANUARY, yet the administration not only denied there was any problem well into March, they did NOTHING behind the scenes to prepare for the pandemic - no masks, no ventilators, no nothing.