Wouldn't the reliance on historical records of influenza need be somewhat tempered in that those records demonstrate a February peak and we are now in mid-May with numbers still rising? Additionally, if we rely on historical records of influenza then we must accept that there will be a fall recurrence and that seasonal recurrences will continue in the absence of a vaccine, do we not?
First, I'm not going to pretend that I have the information others don't. Second, do we have any understanding at this time whether there will be a flair up or not in the fall...and what would THOSE numbers be? If you rely on historical records...which is reasonable, then how much more severe is this chinese virus over the last chinese virus and so forth? Do we think that by choosing some arbitrary rate of infection increase as a stop point that we understand the effects? No, the science is missing in what many suggest they want...but are easily pacified into an understanding they don't have.
Not having the science like all in this site, I cannot make a prediction. I do think it is fairly safe to suggest that migration infections increasing results in the potential numbers (maybe not percent) of hospitalization increasing. We don't even know that those infected couldn't be reinfected later. We really don't know a hell of a lot about this. There are so many unknowns at THIS time (although I'm certain data exists). What we do know is that lockdowns cannot go on forever and so it only makes sense we should actually understand something about them, rather than just a vague understanding that some amount of increased infections results in and increase in deaths or increased problems in the variables common in older people that have one issue to only soon get another.
Quite simply an understanding of what I suggest guide the lockdowns and such is better than the "guess" made today. I mean my suggestion is real science and would think those that want "science" really want science and not ideoology or hunches.
Now, not having the biological background, but guessing in what I think part of your questions get towards are the infection rate today and hospitalization later...what is that delay number? Errors there and every place create that scatter plot variation about that least squares fit or Pearson Correlation. There will be high readings and low readings with every location on the X axis...THAT variation would include all errors in measurement and effects of things we don't know. However, that scatterplot might be tighter than our best guesses at this time. Not spending time on this, but as a quick guess for explanation...I would solicit the biological exposure date to inflamination or such on the average of the human body. Let's say 5 days is the most common for it to get bad (use any number you like...the worse our guess, the larger the scatter of the data) enough to be hospitalized..."IF" it does. Maybe we have every state data on infection cases and 5 days later hospitalization in that local? All the errors of that prediction would include those properly admitted and those that were not by some others opinion. Maybe that number should be 4 days...does that create a better correlation and so forth?
The alternative to this understanding is what...guessing? I mean we already know the potential numbers of infection leans towards some number large enough that infinity is the lean...and yet actual data suggests something much different...much smaller. How do we arrive at our best understanding? Again, I have no idea what specifics should be used. I'm suggesting being driven by "understanding" the data...not the theological worse case, but what actually happens. Too many errors in the data based upon all the potential sources of variation just creates a larger band of prediction and actually then creates a false sense that something is worse than it really is...since they create more range than reality. However, is THAT range less than just guessing? I don't know, but would like to know.
What if we did that HT versus WT plot and so forth and we had errors in our ht measurement and scales ...some weighing us a few poounds to light and others too heavy...all those variables create a prediciton range greater than what really exists. Again, I don't have the answers and hopefully not suggesting I do. I just think we should be driven by science and as far as I know everyone thinks that as well even though they don't recognize the lack of science.
There are things we know we know. There are things we know we don't know (me on some). Then there are things we don't know, we don't know (most of us, me included) and those are the things that can come back and bite us.
