- The risk level is the estimated chance (0-100%) that at least 1 COVID-19 positive individual will be present at an event in a county, given the size of the event.
If I have 25 random people over from around town, I can expect a 16% chance that someone positive shows up.
Everyone in Rosebud, MT has COVID19, I guess.
What monetary value do you ascribe to living (vs. dying) in the "costs" section of the risk equation?
Just trying to do some basic economics maths.
The model’s default assumes only 10% of positive cases are tested. That’s a big driver of these numbers. You could test this model with random spot testing.
It’s possible that 20% of the US has contracted it. If 6M cases have been reported, and only 10% are tested, then 60M have contracted it thus far. My guess us that it’s lower, like the 20% tested setting.
If you take that assumption you need to put it both in the numerator and the denominator and it cancels out. Because it means that there were 10x more cases but the complications were therefore 10x less likely. Hence why you need to look at a value like %chance of death or %chance of covid complication to decide risk.
It's 24% for 25 people, here.
My mind is blown NOT by Sturgisfest being possibly linked to 250k+ cases (and that's just so far), but by the governor having the audacity to come out today and say:
I guess we don't have the "freedom" to good public health. This justification of recklessness is reducible to "I can do what I want!". You can couch it in whatever libertarian cowboy language you desire, but it reveals a sincere selfishness. It's impossible for me to wanna share a society with folks who have utterly no sense of community, as demonstrated by complete abdication of personal responsibility.
250k cases sounds steep. On perusal, the paper looks pretty thorough.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf
The governor is looney. But, the study isn't peer-reviewed. So they might both be wrong. Still, it doesn't take much sense not to have a motorcycle rally in a pandemic.
Footnote:
- Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity.
It goes on, and of course I wouldn't consider this to be an unassailable study, but that's not the point. My complaint is that 460k of the usual ~500k Sturgis-goers treated this year like any other, while also embracing an anti-masking culture that further enabled airborne covid propagation.
How many studies do we need to tell us we'd all be better off if that sort of behavior changed? What kind of a sacrifice am I to infer people would be making for one lost year of a cancelled motorcycle rally? Maybe some could convince me that it's a major loss for them, but I'm not having face-to-face socialization fun, either. Sucks, right? (hence, me spamming hubskichat)
If 2020 doesn't suck, you're probably making it worse for other people, and if we can't collectively invest one or two years into the future, how am I supposed to feel confident that the wealthiest country in the world can be trusted to combat climate change? We've engineered almost half of our culture to dismiss the entire idea.