bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 8, 2020 10:33:04 GMT -5
Although in theory, lack of social distancing will speed up the pandemic, which means the peak will come earlier and the recovery* will come faster. Of course, at the unwise cost of a massive increase in deaths. (*This also assumes some degree of post-recovery immunity, which seems likely but unclear.)
As of this morning, that same site now says the peak in deaths will be in 4 days and peak resource usage will be in 3 days. Given the current state of things, social distancing still not occurring, and a huge swath of the country still doing whatever they want, I cannot imagine we are going to be anywhere near that. Where are you living where a huge swath of the country isn't doing social distancing? I live is a very low density county in Kansas where pretty much everyone is social distancing and staying mostly at home. I live in a city of 4,000 people with ZERO positive tests and yet just about everyone is doing everything possible to keep this from spreading. You see people waking throughout the neighborhood - and Everyone will cross the street to keep large distances.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2020 10:37:31 GMT -5
Although in theory, lack of social distancing will speed up the pandemic, which means the peak will come earlier and the recovery* will come faster. Of course, at the unwise cost of a massive increase in deaths. (*This also assumes some degree of post-recovery immunity, which seems likely but unclear.)
As of this morning, that same site now says the peak in deaths will be in 4 days and peak resource usage will be in 3 days. Given the current state of things, social distancing still not occurring, and a huge swath of the country still doing whatever they want, I cannot imagine we are going to be anywhere near that. Can’t find the article now, but I read that the buyin from the general public far exceeded the hopes of officials. Their hope (and models) were based on like 50% of Americans practicing their social distancing. In reality, it’s been about 75%. Edit: correct, 90% are adhering to the guidelines. “ A key factor driving the large estimate was a crucial assumption, discussed internally by task force officials, that only 50% of Americans would observe the government's stringent social distancing guidelines, the source said. That calculation was not shared widely. In reality, a much larger number -- 90% -- is observing the government's guidelines, US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said in several interviews this week.” www.cbs58.com/news/top-public-health-official-says-number-of-dead-could-be-lower-as-americans-practice-social-distancing
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Apr 8, 2020 10:52:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Apr 8, 2020 10:59:39 GMT -5
that link "scores" the united states as a "B-" and improving.
this conflicts with your assertion that "social distancing [is] still not occurring"
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Apr 8, 2020 11:02:11 GMT -5
that link "scores" the united states as a "B-" and improving. this conflicts with your assertion that "social distancing [is] still not occurring"
Not by the data given in the previous data link. The data they were giving was based on COMPLETE SOCIAL DISTANCING. Which is not happening. We are doing ok, but we absolutely are not in a situation of complete social distancing, as it the assumption within the data set people are holding up as an example.
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Apr 8, 2020 11:07:06 GMT -5
that link "scores" the united states as a "B-" and improving. this conflicts with your assertion that "social distancing [is] still not occurring"
Not by the data given in the previous data link. The data they were giving was based on COMPLETE SOCIAL DISTANCING. Which is not happening. We are doing ok, but we absolutely are not in a situation of complete social distancing, as it the assumption within the data set people are holding up as an example. what is "complete social distancing"?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 8, 2020 11:16:51 GMT -5
that link "scores" the united states as a "B-" and improving. this conflicts with your assertion that "social distancing [is] still not occurring"
Not by the data given in the previous data link. The data they were giving was based on COMPLETE SOCIAL DISTANCING. Which is not happening. We are doing ok, but we absolutely are not in a situation of complete social distancing, as it the assumption within the data set people are holding up as an example. And yet the projected total number of deaths keeps dropping. Does that just simply mean that the model was previously overestimating the severity of the virus?
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 8, 2020 11:18:31 GMT -5
that link "scores" the united states as a "B-" and improving. this conflicts with your assertion that "social distancing [is] still not occurring"
Not by the data given in the previous data link. The data they were giving was based on COMPLETE SOCIAL DISTANCING. Which is not happening. We are doing ok, but we absolutely are not in a situation of complete social distancing, as it the assumption within the data set people are holding up as an example. Important correction: they assume that social distancing AS IMPLEMENTED will be maintained. They say that "levels" of social distancing are accounted for in the paper, from what I got on a skim of it. If I read it wrong please feel free to correct me.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 8, 2020 11:28:47 GMT -5
The big risk for the 2020 season is the "second wave" scenario.
1) We end "social distancing" too soon, while there are still pockets of infection. 2) As the uninfected (and non-immune) people start mixing again, these pockets of infection act as incubators. 3) It takes several months for the pockets of infection to spread far enough to reach "pandemic" status (like it did the first time, with the virus apparently emerging in Wuhan many months ago). 4) Second wave catches fire around the middle of the 2020 NCAA volleyball season.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 8, 2020 12:00:23 GMT -5
The big risk for the 2020 season is the "second wave" scenario. 1) We end "social distancing" too soon, while there are still pockets of infection. 2) As the uninfected (and non-immune) people start mixing again, these pockets of infection act as incubators. 3) It takes several months for the pockets of infection to spread far enough to reach "pandemic" status (like it did the first time, with the virus apparently emerging in Wuhan many months ago). 4) Second wave catches fire around the middle of the 2020 NCAA volleyball season. Yep - I think the potential for a 2nd wave is THE big risk. That said - I also think that social distancing was our only way to deal with the pandemic, which isn't the same thing as saying social distancing is the only way to prevent a pandemic (outside a vaccine). In theory, there could be a way to prevent the 2nd wave from turning into a pandemic while greatly loosening the current social distancing going on right now.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Apr 8, 2020 12:22:02 GMT -5
Although in theory, lack of social distancing will speed up the pandemic, which means the peak will come earlier and the recovery* will come faster. Of course, at the unwise cost of a massive increase in deaths. (*This also assumes some degree of post-recovery immunity, which seems likely but unclear.)
As of this morning, that same site now says the peak in deaths will be in 4 days and peak resource usage will be in 3 days. Given the current state of things, social distancing still not occurring, and a huge swath of the country still doing whatever they want, I cannot imagine we are going to be anywhere near that.
So do you think that lack of social distancing extends the peak or brings it closer?
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Apr 8, 2020 12:23:07 GMT -5
what is "complete social distancing"? an imaginary concept.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 8, 2020 12:23:52 GMT -5
The big risk for the 2020 season is the "second wave" scenario. 1) We end "social distancing" too soon, while there are still pockets of infection. 2) As the uninfected (and non-immune) people start mixing again, these pockets of infection act as incubators. 3) It takes several months for the pockets of infection to spread far enough to reach "pandemic" status (like it did the first time, with the virus apparently emerging in Wuhan many months ago). 4) Second wave catches fire around the middle of the 2020 NCAA volleyball season. Yep - I think the potential for a 2nd wave is THE big risk. That said - I also think that social distancing was our only way to deal with the pandemic, which isn't the same thing as saying social distancing is the only way to prevent a pandemic (outside a vaccine). In theory, there could be a way to prevent the 2nd wave from turning into a pandemic while greatly loosening the current social distancing going on right now. The vball crowds at the big midwestern programs tend older. Given the huge risks posed to that age group, it's really hard for me to see how large indoor gatherings will be a good idea by fall. Will we require that everyone show they are positive for antibodies before attending? Is it even possible to implement such a policy reliably? Otherwise we have to hope for a dependable treatment because the vaccine won't be ready in time. We don't have a great record of developing such treatments for this family of viruses - but then again, there hasn't been a pressing need.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Apr 8, 2020 12:27:23 GMT -5
Not by the data given in the previous data link. The data they were giving was based on COMPLETE SOCIAL DISTANCING. Which is not happening. We are doing ok, but we absolutely are not in a situation of complete social distancing, as it the assumption within the data set people are holding up as an example. what is "complete social distancing"? Put yourself in a woodshed and throw away the key.
|
|
|
Post by dgo on Apr 8, 2020 12:38:18 GMT -5
Yep - I think the potential for a 2nd wave is THE big risk. That said - I also think that social distancing was our only way to deal with the pandemic, which isn't the same thing as saying social distancing is the only way to prevent a pandemic (outside a vaccine). In theory, there could be a way to prevent the 2nd wave from turning into a pandemic while greatly loosening the current social distancing going on right now. The vball crowds at the big midwestern programs tend older. Given the huge risks posed to that age group, it's really hard for me to see how large indoor gatherings will be a good idea by fall. Will we require that everyone show they are positive for antibodies before attending? Is it even possible to implement such a policy reliably? Otherwise we have to hope for a dependable treatment because the vaccine won't be ready in time. We don't have a great record of developing such treatments for this family of viruses - but then again, there hasn't been a pressing need. For what it's worth, the crowds at my daughter's home matches could easily practice social distancing. I've already told her she needs to consider that her season might be cancelled. I hope not -- and wouldn't go so far as to predict it -- but I also wouldn't be terribly surprised.
|
|