Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So, what would you suggest?

I think it's interesting because we're living in an era where maybe we are less trusting of strangers or maybe not, but we're certianly given reasons to feel less trusting (probably overstated reasons). And when someone gets chased off at gunpoint,we know about it as compared to not knowing historically.

I mean, we used to have traveling salesmen. They drove around and sold vacuums at your door. Maybe they were often treated this poorly and it just wasn't talked about. I dunno. 

Something has to give here, obviously. Nobody should be subjected to violence or threats while working. My field survey employees get it from time to time too.

We used to hide when the Jehovah's came to the door. I don't think they do that anymore??

We don't hide or they don't go door to door as much?

might get shot

I can't remember the last time one came knocking. Maybe 15-20 years ago or so??

Weren't their early numbers showing 2M deaths in the US?

Imperial College of London was the one showing 2M. 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Bear in mind that was their "do nothing" worst-case scenario. And by "do nothing", I mean literally NOTHING:

In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour

They even claim it is unlikely, largely because we know that as the cases and deaths mounted people absolutely would change their behavior. As you even point out with the link to the article about of Sweden, where even despite official lockdowns the Swedes were voluntarily complying with the request to change their behavior. 

While everyone was crowing about how wrong they were, their best-case scenario was much lower (the PDF suggests a factor of 8) if I remember correctly. That best-case was based on 5 mitigation strategies:

• CI: Case isolation in the home -- Symptomatic cases stay at home for 7 days, reducing nonhousehold contacts by 75% for this period. Household contacts remain unchanged. Assume 70% of household comply with the policy. 
• HQ: Voluntary home quarantine -- Following identification of a symptomatic case in the household, all household members remain at home for 14 days. Household contact rates double during this quarantine period, contacts in the community reduce by 75%. Assume 50% of household comply with the policy. 
• SDO: Social distancing of those over 70 years of age -- Reduce contacts by 50% in workplaces, increase household contacts by 25% and reduce other contacts by 75%. Assume 75% compliance with policy. 
• SD: Social distancing of entire population -- All households reduce contact outside household, school or workplace by 75%. School contact rates unchanged, workplace contact rates reduced by 25%. Household contact rates assumed to increase by 25%. 
• PC: Closure of schools and universities -- Closure of all schools, 25% of universities remain open. Household contact rates for student families increase by 50% during closure. Contacts in the community increase by 25% during closure.

Hmm, seems like we've actually done a pretty good job of implementing ALL of the strategies that they identify. And we started wearing masks too. And they didn't even assume 100% compliance, because that would of course be unrealistic. 

So I don't know why everyone points out how "wrong" they were. If you look at their model for the Great Britain, their model claims that if you use all 4 mitigation strategies (PC+CI+HQ+SD), and an R0 of 2.4, their total deaths over two years would finish around 39,000*. Their deaths as of today? 42,000. 

So the UK model's best case is better than they've done so far. Yet this model is still held up as evidence of fear-mongering because we did the things they told us would keep the number of deaths from reaching the levels they prophesied as "do nothing". 

 * Note: that's based on certain trigger policies of when you do/don't implement the strategies and when you come off them. I chose worst-case.

The Florida Governor is allowing the people of his state to choose.

Imagine that. A public official keeping his nose out of private business. Who'd have thunk it?



"We never closed down over the summer," he said, later adding: "We have been open. The final piece to the puzzle was this capacity limitation on the restaurants at 50%. So that was the announcement today that brought that in for a landing. A lot of those folks in that industry have had a really, really rough time."


"We have to have a situation where individuals can make decisions about what makes sense for them," the governor said. "If it's something you are not comfortable doing, nobody will force you to do it. But I think people need to be free to choose."

How dare he allow people to think, decide and do for himself, doesn't he know that getting covid is almost instant death and if you don't die, you will be seriously maimed for the rest of your life.

I guess, I am finally totally fed up that we can't look at the statistic and see that while it is serious, it shouldn't be treated any different than any other pandemic and/or epidemic that we have had in the past.

Feel free to roast me, call me ignorant, uncaring about those who might die, etc. I am so over this. 

I will try to find it, but the early models coming out of I believe some Washington University said 2 Million and they were using it early in all of this.

3 posts above you. Imperial College London. I linked to their paper. 

2M was assuming the null hypothesis, i.e. gov't takes no action, and people go around their day behaving like they'd never heard of COVID as the death tolls around them mount. 

Their paper suggested MUCH lower numbers if the mitigation was put into effect.