↪Andrew M We had a weekend everyone went to the beach despite the clear advice by the government and experts to stay home. That was in the same week everyone applauded the health care workers in the evening from their homes. My neighbour who is an anesthesist said to that :" Everyone who went to the beach should've raised their middle finger at the health care workers instead".

The next day a law was passed that allows police to fine people.

Personal responsibility is all well and good when other people's lives aren't at stake. In this situation not so much. The risk is too abstract when a people see .2% CFR. — Benkei

Yes that's an excellent example. In that context, passing such a law does not violate human rights, it protects them (i.e., no-one has the right to risk people's health in a pandemic).

Whereas going Hungary's route and voting to give the government absolute power to rule by decree does trample human rights.

These distinctions matter and shouldn't be blurred.

Again I don’t think it’s that black and white. You are literally not helping others, protecting others, or soothing any suffering by hiding in your house. You are hiding. You have retreated. You have cowered. Those who are helping people are the first line in this pandemic: doctors, nurses, “essential workers”. So let’s stop pretending we are in some way morally better because we hide in our bedrooms. — NOS4A2

No, you literally are helping others by staying home. You are reducing the paths of transmission that the virus can take. If you are sick, you are then not infecting others outside your home. If you are not sick, you will then not be infected by others outside your home. Either way, by staying at home, you reduce the chances of people becoming infected and, in a week or two's time, needing to be treated in hospital.

That's what both health care workers and epidemiologists are asking you to do. The moral course of action for the overwhelming majority of people is to stay home.

In my mind the utilitarian calculus is the one that claims to save lives by denying basic civil liberties and human rights while ruining the very means with which we provide for our families. It does not follow that such measures need to be enforced in order to practice them. Do you yourself require a police-state and a ruined economy to physically distance yourself from others, to practice hygiene and to follow common-sense steps to avoid infection? — NOS4A2

Denying civil liberties and human rights is dangerous. However risking the health of yourself and others in a pandemic is not a human right. Context matters.

The vast majority do survive COVID-19, so that was never the issue. — frank

Correct. The actual issue is that when faced with a risk where the downside is large (or should I say yuuuge - in this case, millions of lives lost), we should not take that risk. We also should not try to tread a narrow path on the edge of the precipice, as many countries are doing. We should instead err on the side of extreme caution.

And this makes absolutely no sense to me. We're in the middle of a pandemic and we're trying to figure out what works and what doesn't. How on earth could politicians have been ahead of the game without time machines? — frank

We know what works as China, South Korea and other countries have demonstrated in their different ways. Eliminate the paths of transmission to prevent the virus from spreading.

The president has one job. To make that message crystal clear to Americans. Then it is up to the American people to collectively act on that message until the virus has been brought under control.

You're kind of talking to yourself here, which is normal. We're all inhabiting and animating myths in the face of the unknown. It's how we deal with the stress of that when sickness and death have been raised up.

In the old days, people would have sacrificed animals or walked through the streets beating themselves with barbed whips trying to control it all. But the trick of mythology is that people don't recognize it as fiction. They think its science, and it is in a way.

And so I talk to myself also, living out my own myth. — frank

By our myths, philosophy is revealed to be not just a game, but a matter of life and death.

There is much that is unknown. But there is also such a thing as reality, the growth of knowledge and the ability for people to act locally and make a difference. In this case, extreme social distancing. Our local choices have global consequences.

If I could just vent for two seconds here. We hope it's a matter of human will. I don't think we know that yet because we aren't through it. The assumption that our leaders are supposed to be geniuses with time machines has us turning on each other already. If it turns out that nature really does have the upper hand here, the arrogance of assuming that humans were supposed to dominate it and just failed because they're stupid or evil can have potentially ugly consequences like scapegoating. — frank

Our leaders don't need to be geniuses with time machines. They simply need to observe what is happening in the world around them (or listen to experts that do) and take every precaution when it comes to systemic, asymmetric risk. If it turns out that they were overly cautious, then so be it. At least we survived and we should be happy to pay the insurance premium for that. But if they were not cautious enough, then millions of people can end up dying as a result of their actions.

Note that pandemics have happened before and they will happen again, even if the timing and severity are unpredictable. That requires vigilance and preparation. I think it's fair to hold our leaders and government bodies accountable to that standard.

But just as the virus grows rapidly, so it can be killed off rapidly. That is done by eliminating all paths of infection and waiting a few weeks (the infectious period).
— Andrew M

I dont think that's going to happen. China came down off lockdown and went right back on. I think it has multiple options for transmission. — frank

It does, but China has time and options now for learning more about the virus, and figuring out what actions work and what do not.

If the virus spreads again in China, it does so from a small base and ideally within bounded geographical areas. So it will be easier to suppress again, whether by lockdown or test-and-trace.

This really comes down to whether countries have the collective will to do what it takes to stop the virus. If they do, then it will be much easier to contain the second time around.

The choice between stopping the virus or protecting the economy is a false choice. If the virus is not stopped, then health systems will be overwhelmed, the dead bodies will pile up, and economies will be devastated anyway.
— Andrew M

For the US, yes. For less developed countries? I’m far from convinced because they lack the basic infrastructures to police this or the beds, staff and equipment to treat the waves of patients. — I like sushi

I don't think they have a choice. If developing countries just let the virus run its course, then millions of people dying is the predictable result. People can either fatalistically accept that default outcome, or they can act now to try to change it. It's really up to a country's leaders to properly communicate what actions are needed and then help local communities do them effectively.

↪ssu There is certainly a degree of hysteria. Such is the internet!

It’s a serious condition though, and not to be take lightly. I think lockdown policies for some countries could be far more damaging than letting the virus do its thing - see above.

What bothers me is how developing countries are attempting to react like other developed nations when they quite clearly don’t have the economic clout to do so and run the horrible risk of taking on two terrible paths at once instead of one. — I like sushi

Panic is the appropriate and rational response when you discover a fire is tearing through your neighborhood.

COVID-19 is that fire and it is in your neighborhood. The only difference is that the devastating effects of infection are not realized for two weeks (from date of infection to symptoms requiring hospitalization), after which many more people have become infected.

But just as the virus grows rapidly, so it can be killed off rapidly. That is done by eliminating all paths of infection and waiting a few weeks (the infectious period).

That is the action that all countries must take, and sooner is overwhelmingly better than later.

In concrete terms:
1. Isolate COVID-19 individuals and the people they touched
2. Identify and isolate individuals with symptoms (colds, etc.)
3. Reduce social connectivity (social distancing, masks, hygiene, etc.)
4. Stop transportation and contact between geographical groups (close borders, prevent domestic travel, etc.)

The best thing that developed countries can do to help developing countries is to make that message absolutely clear by actioning it themselves and providing an example for them to follow.

Here's the mathematics that undergirds that message.

The choice between stopping the virus or protecting the economy is a false choice. If the virus is not stopped, then health systems will be overwhelmed, the dead bodies will pile up, and economies will be devastated anyway.

I would think South Korea is the other extreme. Where they use your phone data (and they know it's yours, with name and everything) to warn everybody with a cellphone in your vicinity that you have or are suspected to have Coronavirus. — Benkei

We had too our first death after implementing the lockdown. Yet I'm not sure if Sweden is totally opposite to New Zealand. I think there's a lot more variables than the policy measures taken especially if you haven't chosen the South Korea / Singapore option right from the start. — ssu

Yes, agreed. South Korea/Singapore got ahead of the curve early on, which NZ was not able to do (before lockdown).

Welcome to the reality of hidden exponential growth. In three more days, the US will have at least 200,000 confirmed cases.
— Andrew M

I calculate about 150,000. But it's going to be bad one way or the other. — Baden

Let's see then on next Monday what the figures are. (Let's see who got closer! :death: ) — ssu

So the numbers are in:

Confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States:

Mar 26: 81,966 (+26%)
Mar 27: 100,997 (+23%)
Mar 28: 121,105 (+20%)
Mar 29: 141,701 (+17%)

@Baden: Your prediction of 150,000 is pretty much on the money.

The difference with the models is that yours assumes that measures applied in March had an appreciable effect on "flattening the curve" (similar to Italy's growth curve). Whereas mine simply assumes the prior average growth (approx. +35%/day) until two weeks after lockdown (i.e., to see an effect in the data).

Some candidate measures: voluntary social distancing has been gradually increasing; testing and isolating positive cases has rapidly increased. Also several one-off events as noted in the timeline below (italicized). Since New York was the significant case contributor, I've included both NY-specific events and national events.

Timeline for March:
March 1 - First confirmed NY case
March 2 - US confirmed cases pass 100
March 5 - Two confirmed cases in NY without trace
March 11 - US confirmed cases pass 1,100
March 13 - US confirmed cases pass 2,100
March 14 - First death in NY
March 15 - Europe travel ban
March 16 - UK/Ireland travel ban
- NY public schools close
- Trump issues guidelines to avoid gatherings > 10 people
- Trump restricts discretionary travel
March 20 - Cuomo issues state-wide order that all non-essential workers must stay home
- confirmed cases pass 7,000 in NY, 19,000 in US
March 26 - US confirmed cases pass 82,000 (surpassing China)
March 29 - US has 141,701 confirmed cases, 2,462 deaths

It's been an eventful month for the US. Unfortunately, many more states besides NY will begin to factor significantly in the next week.

I'm just waiting when our dear neighbor Sweden will change it's policy and quarantine Stockholm. I think there the only Nordic country with schools open etc. and going with herd "immunity". — ssu

Flying blind. At the other extreme, New Zealand have been on lockdown for several days and had its first death yesterday.

Two days ago (March 24, 2020):

Coronavirus: US could become new epicentre of outbreak amid ‘very large acceleration’ in cases, WHO warns

"Over 46,000 infections and 530 deaths recorded, putting America on course to overtake Italy in number of cases.

...

Authorities have suggested the US is on track to eventually overtake China’s nearly 82,000 infections." — Michael

[bold mine]

That same day:

I'm giving it three days.
— Andrew M

82 000 has already passed in reality.
— ssu

Yes it has. — Andrew M

Today it is March 26, 2020 in the United States. The US has just passed China in the number of confirmed cases of Covid-19.

As @ssu pointed out, the above article was obsolete from the moment it was written. The US already was the epicenter and the "suggested" overtaking of China in terms of the actual number of infections had already passed.

Welcome to the reality of hidden exponential growth. In three more days, the US will have at least 200,000 confirmed cases. (And, in reality, already has that many cases.)

80%-90% of the population in your state or country needs to go into home self-isolation immediately and for at least four weeks. You won't get a second chance on this.

Your political leaders have failed to understand the absolute severity of this pandemic. Step up and tell your friends, family and coworkers that it is time to go into self-isolation now. New Zealand has already gone into lockdown and they have only 283 confirmed cases (and no deaths) as of today. How many cases does your state (US) or country have?

I've seen several econ bloggers link to this twitter thread by infectious disease expert Tom Inglesby.

In last 24 hrs there've been prominent US voices calling for a stop to social distancing, citing rationale that they're worse than impact of COVID itself. It’s worth looking very closely at that claim, where we are in US COVID epidemic and what happens if we stop. 1/x
...
These big social distancing measures take time to work. The impact of big interventions in Wuhan China took about 3 wks to start to reverse things. And then everyday after the situation got better. In the US, we're about 7 to 10 days into this, depending on the state.10/x
...
Anyone advising the end of social distancing now, needs to fully understand what the country will look like if we do that. COVID would spread widely, rapidly, terribly, could kill potentially millions in the yr ahead with huge social and economic impact across the country. 15/x
...
We also need to put every conceivable econ program in place to help those being hurt by these social distancing measures. And move ahead rapidly to get our country far better prepared to cope w COVID before people recommend we abandon our efforts to slow this virus. 24/x — Tom Inglesby - MD, Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

So, the US today* had almost twice as many new Covid cases as anywhere else in the world. Sounds like a good time to stop social distancing and open everything up. :vomit: — Baden

In Trump's mind, a deadline for returning to work provides business certainty which will be the basis for "resurrecting" the economy.

In reality, there will be no certainty until the virus is stopped.

As of now, Australia's government is blissfully going down the US/Europe route.

A key member of an expert panel advising the Government's response to COVID-19 has voiced her frustrations at Australia's staged shutdown approach, warning the death toll could potentially rise if the Government did not take a "go hard, go now approach".

Raina MacIntyre from the UNSW's Biosecurity Program is part of an expert panel from Australia's leading universities, which recommended an immediate but short lockdown to curb cases, an approach the Government did not take.

"I was hoping we'd see a more comprehensive lockdown for a short period of time, but that is not the approach we're taking," Professor MacIntyre said.

"It's more a trickle sort of approach, a little bit by bit, which won't be as effective at stopping the transmission in the community."
...
"If you don't control the disease, your economic losses are going to be far greater and the recovery time is going to be a lot longer."
...
Professor MacIntrye said Australia would be naive to "assume we have everything under control", and that there was still time to bring the situation under control.

"It's not too late. China was having thousands and thousands of cases a day at the time when they implemented the lockdown. But they brought it under control, so it is possible," she said.

"And unless you stop 70 to 80 per cent of people contacting each other, you're not going to stop the transmission." — Coronavirus expert advisory panel member calls on Federal Government to lock Australia down

Apply the hammer, folks, before more people unnecessarily die.

--

University of Sydney modelling showing that the virus can only be controlled if 8 out of 10 Australians stay home.

But I am a firm believer in the right to try and that has to be made available to those who want to try a test that might still be in trial. The fact that there is community spread suggests that herd immunity might be measurable.
...
I realize that the suppression is necessary to flatten the curve but we could be protecting our first responders with antibodies from people who have been infected and have recovered, no? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Things should and are being tried. But such tests and vaccines require time to develop and try.

So the most important priority is to buy the necessary time by suppressing the virus now. In the US and most other countries, that means extreme social distancing until it is suppressed.

We can't afford to drop the ball on this.

As far as numbers go, it seems like the those who'd ape the president's just-thinking-aloud about the keeping the US 'open for business' are, in practice, willing to forgo roughly 600,000 lives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-23/economic-shutdown-is-estimated-to-save-600-000-american-lives — StreetlightX

:100:

The abstract from the working paper referred to in that article:

We extend the canonical epidemiology model to study the interaction between economic decisions and epidemics. Our model implies that people's decision to cut back on consumption and work reduces the severity of the epidemic, as measured by total deaths. These decisions exacerbate the size of the recession caused by the epidemic. The competitive equilibrium is not socially optimal because infected people do not fully internalize the effect of their economic decisions on the spread of the virus. In our benchmark scenario, the optimal containment policy increases the severity of the recession but saves roughly half a million lives in the U.S. — The Macroeconomics of Epidemics - Eichenbaum, Rebeloz, Trabandt

From the introduction:

As the COVID-19 virus spreads throughout the world, governments are struggling with how
to understand and manage the epidemic. Epidemiology models have been widely used to
predict the course of the epidemic.1 While these models are very useful, they do have an
important shortcoming: they do not allow for the interaction between economic decisions
and rates of infection.

Policy makers certainly appreciate this interaction. For example, in their March 19, 2020
Financial Times op ed Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen write that

"In the near term, public health objectives necessitate people staying home from shopping and work, especially if they are sick or at risk. So production and spending must inevitably decline for a time."

I'm giving it three days.
— Andrew M

82 000 has already passed in reality. — ssu

Yes it has.

Until we can start testing communities we won't know where herd immunity exists. If we can ID those people, we can send them to our front lines of needs. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps so, but note that there are presently no approved immunity tests for covid-19. They will take time to develop and validate.

In the meantime, the community priority must be to suppress the virus before millions of people die. The window is closing.

"Authorities have suggested the US is on track to eventually overtake China’s nearly 82,000 infections." [from article] — Michael

I'm giving it three days.

Probably not a good idea for Trump to start easing restrictions. — Michael

The spread of the virus must be brought under control first - the alternative is many unnecessary deaths.

The Koreans I spoke too had voluntarily locked down because they were so scared. So, there's that too. — Baden

Yes, definitely. I'm mainly thinking of the stringent travel bans and closures which are the most expensive measures.

It isn't easy, but South Korea (and others) have done it.
— Andrew M

...and South Koreas death rate is 8 times higher than Japan, that has not done it. So that proves what? — Nobeernolife

The deaths are due primarily to a spike in late February after a "superspreader" (patient 31) infected 43 people and the virus rapidly spread. The daily confirmed case count peaked three weeks later and has been dropping ever since - that's the evidence that comprehensive test-and-trace can work without needing lockdowns. See the timeline chart for details.

With just 102 cases, New Zealand is ordering a full month-long lockdown. This is the hammer. This is intelligence applied to policy. And this will work. — Baden

With strong bipartisan support as well.

When you just think that nearly all dangerous epidemics and pandemics have come from China, perhaps they really have had training, they have learned something and have an incentive to do something about this... especially as the country has become wealthy. — ssu

I think that is right. From Pueyo's earlier article:

South Korea cases have exploded, but have you wondered why Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand or Hong Kong haven’t?

All of them were hit by SARS in 2003, and all of them learned from it. They learned how viral and lethal it could be, so they knew to take it seriously. That’s why all of their graphs, despite starting to grow much earlier, still don’t look like exponentials. — Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now

Plus his data is all sourced. He's just giving the most clear and sensible interpretation. — Baden

Yep.

Sorry again, but that guy really has no authority to speak on such matters. — NOS4A2

You can find endorsements of Pueyo's two articles by infectious disease experts and public intellectuals here:

https://medium.com/tomas-pueyo/coronavirus-articles-endorsements-fdc68614f8e3

Note that it is the argument for the hammer and the dance that is essential here. Pueyo just happens to be the guy that has communicated it best.

I think overestimate how easy it is to introduce "comprehensive testing and tracing". Especially if you are in a free society and not in Communist China. — Nobeernolife

It isn't easy, but South Korea (and others) have done it. The problem in the US was that the testing got off to a bad start (the US CDC's early tests were flawed). And the pandemic was not taken seriously by the administration until very recently.

Afaik, there is no European county that has duplicated the very fast and radical reactions of the governments of Taiwan, Korean, and Singapore. (And mainland China of course, but their reaction came after 2 months of denial, suppression of news, and outright lies). — Nobeernolife

All correct. But the point is that there are only two options available to avoid unnecessary death and social upheaval. That is to comprehensively test and contact trace. Or to completely lockdown until the virus is under control. So the time window has passed in the US for the first option, which leaves only the second option. Once the virus is under control, then the first option becomes available again. That's where China, South Korea, etc., are at now, and so the lockdown measures in place there can begin to be relaxed.

Edit: If you look at Chart 13b - NPI Measures Per Country, you'll see that South Korea had very few travel bans and closures. That's because they were ahead of the virus in their testing and contact tracing.

I'd argue that a community should wait until the virus is present to start shutting down businesses. The goal is not the stop the spread, it's to slow it down. If you close businesses before the virus is there, you aren't slowing anything down. You're just hurting the economy. — frank

That's true if you have comprehensive testing and tracing in place. If a state waits until they're treating sick people to get serious, they're already up to two weeks behind the virus spread and with no knowledge of where exactly it is.

You don't say, "I'll wait for my bed to catch on fire before I get up and do something about it."

This article provides a very interesting perspective on the spread of coronavirus, its containment, and prospects for returning to normalcy.

Summary of the article: Strong coronavirus measures today should only last a few weeks, there shouldn’t be a big peak of infections afterwards, and it can all be done for a reasonable cost to society, saving millions of lives along the way. If we don’t take these measures, tens of millions will be infected, many will die, along with anybody else that requires intensive care, because the healthcare system will have collapsed. — Relativist

This. We need to hammer the virus and control it before it hammers us. Then we will have more time and options for dealing with it.

I would encourage people to sign the petition to get this idea to the White House as soon as possible. 75,000 more signatures required.

How do they know if a test is a false positive? Wouldn't they need some other, better, test to show that it's positive? — Michael

For specificity testing, you don't need a better comparative test because you use known negative samples that demonstrate that your test doesn't give false positives.

There are caveats on that, but that's the essence. You're looking at the gold standard test. The test will only be positive when the virus signature is detected.

Given that some people are asymptomatic, you can't look to symptoms as a measure. — Michael

Right.

Out of 20,338 people tested in Britain for covid-19 164 people have the disease. The test itself is 97% accurate. You take the test and it comes back positive. What's the chance you actually have it based on this single test?

Apparently the answer is something like 21%? — Michael

Yes, it's 21%.

However the actual coronavirus tests will have a specificity of 100% if the same as the WHO tests:

The group verified the test in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 isolates or patient samples but confirmed its specificity against 297 clinical samples from patients with various other respiratory infections. This formed the basis of shipments of 250,000 kits, which the World Health Organization (WHO) dispatched to 159 laboratories across the globe in recent weeks. — Nature - Coronavirus and the race to distribute reliable diagnostics

Which references this paper:

The samples contained the broadest range of respiratory agents possible and reflected the general spectrum of virus concentrations encountered in diagnostic laboratories in these countries (Table 2). In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes. — Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

I figure there'll be flattening as more stringent measures are imposed, so my figure involves a continued fall-off in the log curve along recent Italian lines. — Baden

Fair enough. My concern, though, is that we don't see that in the data right now. And the lack of testing to date in the US means that there may be many more cases out there than anyone realizes.

To me that looks like it'll peak before 100,000 cases. Scale up to America and they should slow down and peak before 1 million (I'm guessing in a couple of months) presuming increasingly strict measures (short of "hammer"-like moves, which still seem unlikely on a national level). — Baden

Hopefully so.

This is true, but there is also the crucial moment measured in days just when the pandemic got rolling on. When it started in Italy, Europe or the West hadn't got the pandemic hysteria. Now when it has truly started in the US, the population takes action. — ssu

Yes it does. The question is whether the specific actions taken have been/will be effective, which is difficult to measure in a timely manner. My concern is that the time window for containing the virus in the US before it overwhelms the healthcare system (as we've seen in Europe) will soon close. Because testing has been inadequate, it's not even known how long that time window is.

The hammer and dance approach is that if strong measures are taken now to contain the virus, that can provide time later for understanding the virus better and allows options for further action. That must include clear and consistent messaging that the problem is extremely serious, and being up front about the actions to be taken and the reasons for them. (This seems to be happening now at least at the state level with NY, CA and others, but needs to extend to the federal level as well.)

Conversely, if ineffective measures are taken and the time window closes, then that leaves limited options, limited understanding and potentially millions of deaths.

And just how successful that "social distancing"? If we take into consideration that China has roughly about 24 more times people than Italy, then it wouldn't be that China has less deaths. Yet month ago when the epidemic started in Italy and when there were only a handful of deaths the actions were taken only regionally. The CNN journalist one month ago were reporting from a Venice quite full with tourists going around. — ssu

Yes, so compare the consistent messaging (and follow through) in China, South Korea, Japan, etc., with Italy, etc. The US needs to do the same, and quickly.

That 0% hides an exponential growth curve. Those case and death numbers are doubling every 2-3 days.
— Andrew M

So the 0% is bad? — Hanover

Only if people think that there's nothing to see there. What percentage do you think it should be before taking action?

I'm extrapolating purely from the reported US case numbers in the table here.
— Andrew M
And that is a great looking logarithmic scale growth to extrapolate from.

But notice that the information itself has an effect here. When you get greater numbers, you get greater panic and more drastic measures. That will have an effect on the forecast and the extrapolation may need what in economics and statistic is called a Dummy variable.

For example, now New York City has 43+ deaths from corona virus. What do you think the effect would be if it would be in few weeks it would be 400 or 4 000? I figure the amount wouldn't be quite high when the lockdown and the curfew will be enforce by police and the national guard, which will stop people walking in the street. — ssu

Yes, I would expect those things to have an effect. But as we've seen elsewhere, those effects may not register in the figures for up to 2 weeks (some of those who got the virus the day before the lockdown may not be tested for up to two weeks). And the success of the lockdown depends on how well it is enforced in practice (see the Milan example quoted above), as well as the specifics of the lockdown. Another factor is that testing may still be inadequate so the base numbers themselves may be much higher right now.

As it happens I was in New York City until last weekend (and in LA a few days ago), so I've seen firsthand how long it takes for social distancing and other measures to properly take hold. Problems may surface with the lockdowns as well.

Then there's the potential effect of overwhelmed hospitals and health workers. The available ICU beds and health workers are critical factors.

So whether we see 400 or 4000 or more in a few weeks would seem to depend crucially on whether the needed measures are made soon enough.

(Got to go now but will follow up tomorrow.)

It shows that 0% of the US cases are serious. — Hanover

That 0% hides an exponential growth curve. Those case and death numbers are doubling every 2-3 days.

Any thoughts on why our math differs here? Perhaps you have a longer doubling period? Anyone else want to check the numbers?
— Andrew M
Do you take into account the effect of "social distancing" and the lock downs? — ssu

I'm extrapolating purely from the reported US case numbers in the table here. Yes, there are lots of unknowns, including cases missed due to inadequate testing, and the effects of the the NY and CA lockdowns. I discuss those where I use the term "measures".

You see for a logarithmic scale to continue, you would need to have people mingle as they did few weeks ago. Or put it another way. Why are there less new infections than before in China. Surely there would have to be tens if not hundreds of thousands dead by now. So is the Chinese authorities just covering up everything? Do you think that is possible in our time? — ssu

No, China's measures were effective.

The comparison with the US situation is that China's measures were stronger, made earlier in their epidemic and severely enforced. They shut down Wuhan when their identified case count was only 400 in a day whereas there were 5000 new identified cases in the US yesterday. China shut down 15 further cities the following day.

Thanks Andrew, that seems to be one of the most sensible articles about how Covid-19 should be handled that I have seen. — Janus

Indeed. Glad you've found it useful!

Putting all I've read together, including Andrew M's excellent article, unless extreme measures are taken, the US is going to hit half a million cases by about the middle of next month. Probably 250,000 identified and 250,000 downstream. — Baden

By my calculation, at the current trend of doubling every 2.5 days (case data here), the identified US cases would hit half a million by the end of this month. And 50 million by the middle of next month.

Any thoughts on why our math differs here? Perhaps you have a longer doubling period? Anyone else want to check the numbers?

The case growth has remained exponential despite the applied measures to date, as shown in the logarithmic graph here. Note that the same NYT article suggests we may need to wait up to two weeks to see if the most recent measures have their desired effect. But if ineffective, in two weeks the identified cases would be 1.2 million. With an estimated 5% requiring ICU beds (based on China data), the US would need 60k ICU beds, but the total number of ICU beds in the US is only 50-100k (which also need to serve non-coronavirus patients).

So in two weeks, if current measures don't work, doctors will need to start deciding who to save and who to let die, as Italy is doing now. In my view, this makes the case for nationwide lockdown now, as there's no time to wait and see if current measures are effective.

Is accidental true belief praiseworthy?
— Andrew M

In the same sense it's praiseworthy when you play the $1 lottery and win $1,000,000 It's the same $1m whether you worked your ass off your whole life or whether you got lucky. Worst case you lost a $1. — Hanover

Unfortunately, so far the fruits of Trump's gambling instincts are an entrenched pandemic and a stock market crash. Let's hope his luck changes.

However that's only going to happen if he checks his ego and starts listening to people who do know something about pandemics and economics before millions of people die. And that applies to the leaders of every other country as well.

Refer to chart 2 (showing the exponential case explosion) to see the difference that a week of dithering around makes.

Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance - What the Next 18 Months Can Look Like, if Leaders Buy Us Time

In what sounds pretty much like a hunch based upon some anecdotal information, Trump is touting hydroxychloroquine as a likely cure for the coronavirus. He is trying to fast track its approval and start curing an ailing world. He was heavily criticized at his news conference as being a bit reckless with advocating unproven treatments and in creating false hope.

Suppose it works? Will he not be a great savior? — Hanover

I'm sure he would be proclaimed as a great savior by his constituency. That's the script they read from.

But, of course, Trump's hunches have no more epistemic value than tea-leaf reading. That's a lesson being learnt by those who bought stocks on the hunch that coronavirus was "totally under control".

This is a philosophy forum. Is accidental true belief praiseworthy? Should Trump proclaim certainty about things that he knows nothing about?

For example, after extensive paraphrasing, the blogger ends up with the following thesis:

(1) Relativity of simultaneity + all observers’ 3D worlds are real at every event = block universe

I take it from the context that "observers" here are not meant literally, but rather as virtual probes that could potentially be dropped anywhere within the spacetime block. Oh, wait. Well, he does go on to state the obvious: that the second premise already presupposes the conclusion. — SophistiCat

The argument is simply that relativity of simultaneity isn't sufficient by itself to imply a block universe. An additional premise is required, which is that all events to the past of any observer's surface of simultaneity are fixed and certain.

Observer is just being used in its common physics sense - an inertial reference frame. But the specific example referenced - the Andromeda Paradox - has sentient observers.

The "paradox" says that the alien invasion launch is already fixed for one of the people on Earth (since it is in the past of their surface of simultaneity). But this conclusion assumes the above additional premise. Moreover, the alien launch is not in the past light cone of anyone on Earth, it's in a spacelike separated region. So there is no reason to conclude from Special Relativity that the alien invasion is fixed for observers on Earth.

BTW the Physics Forums thread for that article is at:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-block-universe-refuting-a-common-argument-comments.843000/

But then for some reason he backtracks and adds that the first premise is needed as well, although he doesn't explain why. — SophistiCat

Well if relativity of simultaneity is rejected, i.e., simultaneity is absolute, then every observer has the same surface of simultaneity which then doesn't imply a block universe. So both premises are needed to imply a block universe.

Some background:

Kristie Miller, Presentism, Eternalism, and the Growing Block, A Companion to the Philosophy of Time (Wiley, 2013)

David Ingram, Presentism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Steven Savitt, Being and Becoming in Modern Physics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Dean Zimmerman, Presentism and the Space‐Time Manifold, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time (2011) — SophistiCat

A Physics Forums Insights article I've found useful is The Block Universe – Refuting a Common Argument.

Essentially:

(1) Relativity of simultaneity + all observers' 3D worlds (surfaces of simultaneity) are real at every event = block universe

The point of contention is generally the second premise. However experimental results that demonstrate relativity of simultaneity can only be communicated at the speed of light, and all such communicated events are in the observer's past light cone. So the second premise is unnecessary - the following is sufficient to account for our observations:

(3) All events in the past light cone of a given event are real (i.e., fixed and certain) for an observer at that event.

Since the second premise is unnecessary, Relativity does not imply a block universe (at least on that argument).

As David Mermin puts it:

That no inherent meaning can be assigned to the simultaneity of distant events is the single most important lesson to be learned from relativity. — David Mermin, It's About Time

In other words, because one is human, he is necessarily rational and moral, the manifestations of it being given merely from the subjectivity of the individual. It is clear from that, that irrational or immoral is nothing but a relative judgement between agent and observer of the agent. — Mww

That doesn't seem right. While human beings have a general capacity to be rational and moral, people can fail to act rationally or morally in some situations, even by their own standards.

So here we have two things you’ve denied: assigning agency to a faculty, and using Aristotle to refute the Cartesian mind. In the first, correct me if I’m wrong, but you objected to my assertion that understanding is the named thinking faculty, yet here you seem to grant that the intellect names a mental activity. So either intellect is not a faculty or thinking is not an activity. — Mww

Thinking is an activity. But, as with any activity, it is the human being that thinks, not a faculty.

And in the second, Aristotle himself asserts mind as substance, just as Descartes. So either Descartes is talking about mind as indivisible matter (which he isn’t) or they are employing the conception of substance differently. But substance is fundamental for both, Aristotle as a category, Descartes as a continuance, hence refutation, of Aristotle’s final cause. — Mww

They are employing the conception of substance differently. See below.

Besides, it is really confusing: mind (intellect) implanted within the soul makes the soul of higher rank in the mental echelon, but it has already been said it is better not to let soul do anything important in the human animal. — Mww

Part of the interpretive problem is that Aristotle uses language terms for thinking (and related activities) that are distinct from the modern philosophical use of the word "mind". In the context of the passage we're looking at, Aristotle distinguishes between discursive thinking (dianoia which Joe Sachs translates as "thinking things through") and contemplative thinking (noesis). As Sachs puts it:

This twofoldness within the meaning of thinking causes an unavoidable confusion, which can be compounded by translations that are not attentive to the difficulty. In particular, the use of the word "mind" can muddle things beyond repair. The idea of mind is an orphan left behind by the Cartesian shift in the conception of body. The mind is a kind of container, isolated and self-enclosed, in which thoughts, desires, and feelings - all the remnants unconnected with extended body - are found. The closest thing to it in classical philosophy is the birdcage in Plato's Theatetus (197A - 200D), but that image is a parody meant to expose the absurdity of considering knowledge a stock of possessions rather than a living activity. — Joe Sachs - On the Soul

He then goes on to say:

The confusion that is not a product of translation has to do with whether there is an intellect at the foundation of the world, as well as an intellect that is part of the soul. Three times Aristotle refers to "what is called intellect". Once this is in relation to the assertion in Plato's Timeaus that there is a soul of the world; Aristotle claims that the functions given there to a world-soul really belong to what is called intellect (407a 4). A second time, it is connected with Anaxagoras's positing of an intellect that rules all things; in this case Aristotle adopts the word and the argument made about it, but applies them to something within our souls (429a 22). The third time, the phrase is equated with the reasoning part of the soul (432b 26).

The twofoldness described above, of discursive and contemplative thinking, is, for Aristotle, inseparable from the distinction between an intellect and an intellect on which the world as a whole is founded. Aristotle never doubts that the discursive intellect that thinks things through belongs to the embodied soul, and decays and dies along with it (408b 25-29). But the discursive intellect is bound up with a contemplative intellect that must be in us but not of us. If it were not somehow in us, our thinking would not be what it is; if it were wholly within us and subject to our limitations, no thinking would be possible at all. This is the claim made in Book III, Chapter 5. — Joe Sachs - On the Soul

So, for Aristotle, one aspect of the intellect (nous) is thinking things through (dianoia). An example might be solving a jigsaw puzzle. That is an intellectual human activity that involves motion and change. Another aspect of the intellect is contemplation (noesis), which here would be thinking of the jigsaw puzzle as a completed whole. This latter aspect is the governing purpose that isn't tied to this or that contingent person or process. So the first aspect of thinking progresses in time (which Aristotle associates with the human soul or psyche), while the second aspect of thinking is restful and unchanging (which Aristotle associates with the world-soul or divinity). A point to note is that, for Aristotle, this contemplative state is something that humans can achieve at times. Whereas the Unmoved Mover is permanently in this state.

Putting all these together, I get that the knowing being can be a subject (as conscious object), cannot be predicated of anything else, and is not in itself a dual. — Mww

Just to clarify, I should have said that a particular, substantial being cannot be predicated of anything else. For example, neither Socrates nor the specific tree I'm currently pointing at. These kinds of beings were the most fundamental for Aristotle, and what he sought to explain.

I think my trying to explain this using subject/object language, given modern philosophical associations, isn't working very well. So I will instead say that both Socrates and the tree are beings. Each are inseparable form/matter composites (per hylomorphism). Now the form of Socrates is very different to the form of a tree. But in neither case should form be equated with mind nor understood in a dualist subject/object sense. Instead the nature of each being should be investigated on its own terms.

But the conjunction of representations into a conception is not to be found in objects themselves, nor can it be, as it were, borrowed from them and taken up into the understanding by perception, but it is on the contrary an operation of the understanding itself, which is nothing more than the faculty of conjoining a priori and of bringing the variety of given representations under the unity of apperception. This principle is the highest in all human cognition...”
(1787, B134-5) — Mww

So it seems to me that Kant is doing here just what Aristotle is doing with the Unmoved Mover (and active intellect). However instead of assuming a separate subject and object in a Cartesian sense, Aristotle conceptualizes a universal being that subsumes the beings we perceive (including trees and human beings). So the "conjunction of representations into a conception" describes the universal being and can, in principle, be understood by human beings (per metaphysics). The way to get to this understanding is by abstracting from perception (i.e., the universal is abstracted from the particular).

___

Alice didn't observe something and then infer that Bob won the race - she simply observed that he won the race (contra both the Reductionist and Duplicationist who wrongly think the same thing has been observed regardless of whether Bob won or not).
— Andrew M

So is this the point Ryle is making? That Alice makes no inference connecting winning and running? Does anyone actually hold with that? Ya know, doncha.......if Alice makes no inference, that is the same as denying Alice her rational capacity for judgement? Does anyone think Alice makes no judgements? — Mww

Yes, Alice makes judgments, but an observation need not require a further judgment. With experience, higher-level observations become automatic. It's a bit like memorizing one's times tables. You just give an answer, you don't perform a calculation every time. Similarly Alice sees that Bob wins the race, she doesn't have to think about it.

This also relates back to the twofoldness of thinking that Sachs described earlier (and even Kahneman's fast thinking/slow thinking). Instead of a process in time in which Alice thinks things through to arrive at a conclusion, she simply observes things as they are (at least in this race example). Of course, just as with the times tables recall, Alice's brain is active. But that lower-level brain description is a matter for science, Alice herself is not making an inference, even if we can construct a post hoc chain of inferences ourselves to explain Alice's behavior.

Agreed, but the only way to test is to already know what the differences in the test results mean, which presupposes a set of criteria. If we want our criteria to set some standard, we need some certainty from it. Because there is no apodeictic certainty under empirical conditions, we are left with what form certainty would have if we could find it in the empirical world. And where does the form of certainty live? In pure logic. And where does pure logic live? In human judgement, which is itself the conclusion of reason. — Mww

I agree that our tests presuppose a set of criteria. But the test criteria itself might be flawed and need changing. So deciding on test criteria is itself an empirical and experiential endeavor. For Aristotle, logic itself was an empirical matter, the rules for which emerge from our interactions and experiences in the world.

Thanks for your comments regarding apodeictic certainty, understood.