NYRA: Saratoga Race Course’s Summer Season Will Likely Occur Without Fans

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The data and acting wisely is not nearly as complex as people are making it out to be.

The r0 is more or less the key to everything. That tells you how many other people each infected person is passing it on to.

If the r0 =1 that means the caseload will remain flat. Each infected person passes it on to 1 other person. One gets better (or dies) and a new one replaces them.

If the r0 is > 1 new cases will expand. 1 expands to 2 new ones, then 4 new ones etc..

If the r0 < 1 new cases will shrink. (the lower the better)

The r0 itself is a function of how contagious the disease is, but it's also a function of how densely populated the area is, what activities people are engaging in, are they wearing masks, are they social distancing etc..

At the start of the pandemic the r0 was WAY above 1. That's why it spread rapidly in NY.

Now in most states (including NY) it's below 1 because we locked down, started wearing masks, started social distancing, started washing hands, etc... That's why new cases and deaths per day are shrinking now.

So let's say we decide to open restaurants at 50% capacity.

The idea would then be to trace cases spreading in restaurants. If the r0 in restaurants goes to higher than 1, you have to reduce them to 25% capacity or close them back down to only delivery and pickup with masks. You can't allow restaurants to become super spreaders. If the r0 remains below 1, maybe you can try opening them up to 75% capacity.

The better you can test and trace things, the better you know what can remain open and what has to close in each city/state because you have to keep the r0 below 1 to reduce the spread. How extreme you want to be to get the ro lower is the debate, but it HAS TO BE lower than 1 or you start running into problems with healthcare and hospitals.

I heard a Nobel prize winning scientist proclaim the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

Agree or disagree?

[PaceAdvantage]

Here he is explaining @ 6:30 mark in this video:

YouTube

[Tom]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I heard a Nobel prize winning scientist proclaim the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

Agree or disagree?

Uh oh....."experts" disagree......OMG! NOW what do we do??

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Uh oh....."experts" disagree......OMG! NOW what do we do??

Have the "experts" ever agreed on ANYTHING?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I heard a Nobel prize winning scientist proclaim the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

Agree or disagree?

He seems to be referring to r0 as a fixed number that describes how contagious the disease is. Everyone else (including the other person in the interview) is referring to it as a variable that depends on a lot of things "including" how long you are infectious.

It's a definition issue not a disagreement about what is happening.

The point being, lots of things change how many people will be infected, but you have to get the ratio below 1 to cause the new cases to slowly fall.

It was way higher than 1 at the start and now it's below 1.

Change things and it could rise or fall depending on what you change and in which direction.

That's the point of testing, tracing, and collecting data. Then not only can you isolate positives and slow the spread, you can figure out what the higher risk situations are (like meat packing plants) and do something about it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Does the r0 as you are using it incorporate the "time infected" into the equation.

I heard him describe it in the video...and it makes perfect sense...have a low r0 but a high time of infection and you get the same end number as a high r0 and a short time of infection.

So a high r0 might not necessarily be as menacing as it seems depending on how this is all calculated.

You know more about this then me, obviously, which is why I am asking.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Does the r0 as you are using it incorporate the "time infected" into the equation.

I heard him describe it in the video...and it makes perfect sense...have a low r0 but a high time of infection and you get the same end number as a high r0 and a short time of infection.

So a high r0 might not necessarily be as menacing as it seems depending on how this is all calculated.

You know more about this then me, obviously, which is why I am asking.

Technically, the term r0 describes how infectious the disease is. The doctor in the video is saying the time you are infected is a different variable. That's news to me. I may have learned something new.

The term r0 is being used in media, by the interviewer in that video, and by stats guys right now as a way of describing the number of people being infected by a single person given all we are doing to slow down infections (including how long you are infected).

It's possible almost everyone (myself included) is using the term incorrectly now to describe the current number of people being infected. But that's the bottom line number that's important. If 10 of us are positive and we ultimately pass it on to 8 (.8) that would good and if we passed it on to 15 (1.5) that would be bad. The idea is to get that ratio below 1 no matter what you call it.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't think you are ignorant because you disagree with me.

I think you are ADVOCATING (or to be more colorful, wallowing in) ignorance when you post a bunch of stuff that is predicated on the assumption that you know just as much about one of the most complicated scientific topics as people who have spent decades studying this stuff.

Here's an analogy.

I don't think a religious person who believes, as a matter of religious faith, that Charles Darwin was wrong is ignorant.

I do think people who argue that 150 years of biologists who have spent decades of their lives studying the fossil record and testing Darwin's theories know no more about human evolution that some average person on the street are celebrating ignorance.

You have to have a real ego to think that all that study and science and testing and peer review and published papers and instruction and experimentation means nothing at all compared to your own opinion.

You really have to try a different approach when people call you on your insulting statements.
Just because you comeback at them and claim you were making the statement in a different context,doesn't mean they will believe your line of BS.
AKA......just because you lie about something,doesn't mean people have to believe you.
And I know you're not talking about me (bolded) in your second paragraph........it has to be somebody else.......right ?........because I've never once commented on one side or the other of the CV19 Shelter In Place discussions on this board.
All I've commented on in the various CV19 discussions was to point out when you were earning a Gold Star in the book of Clown Shows by your name.
And your analogy ?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China ?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by taxicab

just because you lie about something,doesn't mean people have to believe you.

Says the person who just doubled down on the lie that I somehow predicted the NCAA would operate its basketball tournament. (In fact, I reported news to that effect back when that was the plan.)

[dilanesp]

https://mobile.twitter.com/waEMD/sta...51258861703169

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

https://mobile.twitter.com/waEMD/sta...51258861703169

is this for real? what a comparison in lessons learned. give me a break.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Says the person who just doubled down on the lie that I somehow predicted the NCAA would operate its basketball tournament. (In fact, I reported news to that effect back when that was the plan.)

Touched a nerve........did I ?

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by Magician

this is what the morons in the government fail to understand. some businesses should stay shut down. it makes no sense to open them. however, others can easily open and function profitably with no risk. you can't treat everyone the same. after months of this, the idiots are beginning to realize they were wrong.



what these idiots did to hospitals is mind boggling. shutting down elective surgeries throughout the country was beyond irresponsible. everyone does not live in new york city, but the idiots in the government assumed everyone gets on subways all day long. their belief that the coronavirus would overwhelm hospitals all over america was never based on science. it was just a bunch of idiots in the government that had no idea how hospitals and doctors work. virtually every hospital outside a major city complained that there was no curve to flatten where they were located. the government just ignored them and ruined hospitals financially. the government found money for the kennedy center, which needed no money, but has not found money for hospitals that lost all the money from being forced to shut down. the amount of hospitals that had just a hand full of coronavirus cases is enormous. and the government just ignored these hospitals in all their stimulus funding.

Spot on, Magician.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by Tom

So who is the Expert in the REAL problem - here?

Hint - COVID is only 1 problem - it is not the only problem.

Experts in COVID are destroying the economy and the country.
And none of them were elected.

We need to address ALL the problems, not just the one.

Tom

[dilanesp]

Good piece on the economics of a Saratoga meet during a pandemic:

https://pastthewire.com/can-new-york...oga-this-year/