TheBadOwl's picture


MEMBER SINCE   January 07, 2012


  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Braxton Miller, Carlos Hyde, Ryan Shazier, Malik Hooker
  • NHL TEAM: Columbus Blue Jackets
  • NBA TEAM: Cavs
  • MLB TEAM: #Windians!

Recent Activity

Comment 8 hours ago

Yes, the social distancing and other economic self-destruction policies were “baked into” these terrible models for the last 4+ weeks.

We're far below what those models projected as the worst-case scenarios.

Most of the models (i.e. the #FlattenTheCurve one that everyone was sharing) compared the worst case scenarios with other scenarios where we implemented preventative measures, and those projections haven't been very far off considering that we're dealing with exponents. Each prevented case prevents hundreds of additional cases in the long run, which is what the models project. 

When the “experts” try to jump-to-the conclusion that social distancing, etc. were effective at reducing impacts of the virus, that is a logical fallacy. 

How so? 

The models resulted in social distancing being implemented and public spaces being shut down. That led to fewer social interactions, which led to a dramatically lower amount of chances for the virus to spread, which applies far beyond the initial wave (so further waves get smaller and smaller).

It's not a logical fallacy to conflate fewer social interactions with lower numbers of infected individuals, given that the disease spreads from social interactions. 

Why should we trust “experts” to be good at social engineering when they can’t grasp basic logic?

Again, maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that the preventative measures have been very logical so far – and effective. As for why I'd trust the experts, well, these are people who study infectious diseases and pandemics for a living – they know their shit way more than I do. 

Google is doing this sketchy surveillance thing

Listen man, I don't want a surveillance state and I think big tech companies have WAY too much of our data, so this isn't really a "gotcha" – I'm not gonna get Google tattooed on my chest or anything – but they're using collective data rather than individual.

If someone is breaking social distancing to go see their mistress or something, that's not going to get exposed by Google publishing collective data or showing trends – they're not releasing individual data. 

If you're concerned about the amount of data that big tech companies are gathering – and you probably should be! – this study isn't really what you should be worrying about. 

You know which countries scored the best according to Google? Italy, Spain, and France. Wut? 

Google is only taking one variable into consideration. So again, not an apt comparison. Someone in New York might confine themselves to a 500 foot radius during social distancing and encounter hundreds of people, while someone in Oklahoma might travel 5 miles to go to a grocery store and encounter 10 people. The only thing that they can show, on a large scale, is correlation, but clearly they're missing a lot of variables. 

Comment 8 hours ago

being “safe” means economic self-destruction

To be fair, though, if we were to relax social distancing right now or go back to normal too soon, the outbreak would be more prolonged and lead to a lot of people missing work, being hospitalized, dying, etc. – which has a profound economic impact as well and could be just as damaging long-term to our economic outlook. 

Things are going to suck no matter what. 

Comment 9 hours ago

The "worst case" models were projecting how things would go if we took no precautions, which led to precautions being taken, which subsequent models took into account.

Social distancing is working. 

but nearly every single model has been way off.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, though. The ones that projected millions of deaths were assuming that no precautions would be taken. This was done to illustrate how much those precautions were necessary. New models include the measures that we have taken. Some project what happens if relax those measures too soon, others show what happens if we tighten them. It varies by model. 

As for why the models have been "off" – this is essentially what's happened: 

Models: Hey, look at how bad things are gonna get if we don't do anything! 

Us: Oh damn that does look bad, we should do something 

Us: [Does something]

Models: Hey good job, you've slowed the spread a bit, which has a huge ripple effect on future infections, so our new curve is much flatter! 

The virus is HIGHLY infectious. The initial models projected zero social distancing measures, so every person who is now *not* getting infected due to the measures that we are taking is subsequently preventing hundreds of others from being infected.

The CDC actually traced Chicago's outbreak back to one person who attended two family gatherings, getting at least 14 people infected, three of whom died. Those 14 people then infected even more people, who infected more, etc.

I'm not sure what the actual number would be in terms of average people one sick person would infect, but let's call it 10 (probably a bit high, but the Chicago example is higher, so let's just use that as an example). 

Scenario A: 

  • Patient zero passes the virus onto 10 people.
  • Those 10 people then each pass it on to another 10
  • Those people infect 10 more people, who each infect another 10 people.

That's 10,000 people infected very quickly. But in the second scenario, let's say that 5/10 people practice social distancing, and measures don't change. Here's how the math changes in Scenario B: 

  • Patient Zero has 50% fewer social interactions, infecting 5 instead of 10
  • Those 5 also have 50% fewer interactions, infecting 5
  • Those people each infect 5 more people, who each infect 5 more  

With 50% social distancing, cases from that one patient would drop from 10,000 down to just 625 – a reduction of 93%.

Let's say social distancing catches on more than 50% halfway through this process. Scenario C: 

  • Patient Zero infects five people
  • Those five infect five more, but then social distancing measures increase by another 50%
  • That wave of people on average infects 2.5 more people, who in turn infect 2.5 more each

Same number of waves, but the increasing effectiveness reduces the spread down to 156 new cases, a 75% reduction from Scenario B and a 98.5% reduction from what the spread would be with no measures at all. 

Now, if measures RELAX instead of getting stricter: 

  • Patient Zero infects 5 people 
  • Those 5 infect 5 more, then social distancing measures get relaxed or we decide to reopen everything
  • That wave then infects 10 people each, who infect 10 more 

Again, same number of waves, but the relaxed measures lead to 2,500 people getting, a 400% increase over the static social distancing scenario and a 1600% increase in cases over stricter social distancing. And that's just four waves of transmission, which is a very short timeline all things considered. 

So, essentially, any preventative action early on will have a HUGE ripple effect, because when one person avoids infection, potentially hundreds of subsequent infections are also avoided as a result. That's why the models have been "off" by so much – and that discrepancy is the direct result of us heeding those models and taking action. 

That's not to say that the models are perfect – there are still plenty of unknowns (individuals with antibodies, untested cases, etc) but some of the models try to account for those the best that they can. But hopefully that explains why the initial models had way scarier numbers than what we're experiencing – because we're dealing with exponential spread, so any mitigation has a HUGE impact on future modeling. 

Comment 9 hours ago

"Models" ARE ALL WAAAAAAAY overhyped and ALL ARE WRONG!!! 2.2 Million dead, 600K Dead, 250K Dead, 150K Dead, 100K Dead, 91K Dead now it's down to barely 60K Dead!

It's almost as if – and try to stay with me here! – social distancing measures are reducing the spread of the virus and the strain on the healthcare system, leading to fewer deaths, and that's what is being reflected when the models are updated. 

Comment 13 hours ago

developed a surge hospital at the Columbus Convention Center.

This is super cool, I just hope that while they're there they take down that horrifying video face sculpture thing inside the windows at the corner of High and Goodale. 

Comment 13 hours ago

In the end this will be less deadly than the flu 

If that ends up being the case, it will be solely because of the curve-flattening measures that we took.

Had we continued to live life normally (as is the case with flu outbreaks here), we would have lost far more.

If we see fewer deaths than the flu, it should be seen as a testament to our public health response and containment measures rather than an indictment on the people who implemented them. It is literally proof that those precautions are working. 

Comment 06 Apr 2020

Yup that's what I was referring to. 

I feel like rule of thumb for Ohio State blogs is (or at least used to be) referring to a kid as a 5-star if he was given that status by at least one of the four (now three) services. 

Comment 31 Mar 2020

The point that people are missing in the "football might be delayed or cancelled" debate is that it's not JUST about whether or not they can play in front of fans. 

If there's risk of the virus spreading this summer during training camp, it'll be unsafe for players to go through those programs. If they don't go through those programs, it's safe to assume that they may not be in game shape when the season is set to kick off. Poor conditioning means more injuries. 

If it's unsafe for the players, there won't be football, or it'll be pushed back and/or the season will be truncated. 

Herbie is an easy target for criticism but I don't think anything he said was particularly off-base. You don't have to be a medical doctor to know that shit is bad right now, nor do you need a degree to know that it's best to air on the side of caution when you're trying to resume life after a global pandemic.  

Comment 24 Mar 2020

How funny would it be if they couldn't say a recruit's name… AT ALL.

Like, they're in recruiting meetings and they have to speak pig latin, like "we're in a great spot with ulian-jay eming-flay!" or when they call recruits they have to call them "champ" or "kid" instead of their actual name. 

Comment 23 Mar 2020

Honestly, behind Ja'Marr Chase, numbers 2-10 are splitting hairs. 

Olave is a stud and I think he'll be a finalist for the Biletnikoff this year. If we go on talent alone, he'd probably be in the top five. Statistically, though, Waddle is the only guy on that list who shouldn't be above him based on last year.

Some stats (I don't have ESPN+ so these are in some random order and not how they're ranked) 

Name catches yards touchdowns
Chris Olave 49 849 12
DeVonta Smith 68 1256 14
Rashod Bateman 60 1219 11
JaMarr Chase 84 1780 20
George Pickens* 49 727 8
Rondale Moore* (2018 stats) 114 1258 12
Justyn Ross 66 865 8
Tylan Wallace 53 903 8
Tutu Atwell 70 1276 12
Jaylen Waddle 33 560 6
  • I put Moore's 2018 stats in there because he only played four games this year. Not sure if he was hurt for Games 3 & 4 but he put up 344 receiving yards through the first two games in 2019 for Purdue. 
  • Waddle's numbers took a slight step back from 2018. He's an electric returner but he's the only guy on there who IMO doesn't have much of a case for being above Olave. 
  • Ross & Olave have similar numbers, but Ross's 2018 season (49 catches, 1,000 yards, 9 TDs) is better than either player's 2019 season, so I think he has a strong case for being above Olave (even if I think Olave is better all-around)
  • In that same vein, Tylan Wallace only played eight games last year – in 2018, he had 86 catches, 1,491 yards and 12 TDs. 
  • Pickens also has similar numbers, but played 12 games (Olave had 13) and played in a dogshit offense with a dogshit quarterback. He's the real deal. I have no problem with him ranking ahead of Olave. 

Other than Waddle, the guys ranked above Olave deserve their rankings. That's NOT a slight to Olave, and I think he'll be higher on this year's list. REALLY stretching to say that this is ESPN slighting OSU. 

EDIT: Also my formatting got kinda jacked up but oh well. 

Comment 12 Mar 2020

The daily amount of cases is eerily similar to what Italy experienced and how theirs grew – only we have a bigger population and haven't been testing as much, so it's probably worse. 

The fact that we have community-spread cases without contact with "high risk" carriers shows that it's far more pervasive already than the confirmed case statistics show. 

Enacting measures to prevent large crowds from gathering, combined with urging people to frequently wash their hands, etc., may temporarily slow down parts of the economy, but will prevent this from becoming a catastrophe with much bigger ramifications on the economy – without even getting into the human cost of (conservatively) tens of thousands of deaths. 

Comment 12 Mar 2020

Also, we've been slower to prepare/respond to this, have less ability to test existing cases, etc. than those countries have been.

Very good chance things get worse here than they have been in those other countries, even with these measures being taken. 

Comment 12 Mar 2020

Ohio barely has the means to test anyone so that 24 isn't an accurate number.

Does it suck that sporting events and concerts are getting shut down? Yeah, but it's necessary. Hell, Italy forced all of its RESTAURANTS to close. Those folks love restaurants a hell of a lot more than we love sports. 

Comment 12 Mar 2020

the player who tested positive has played in 9 different arenas in the last week and a half

Also, the last three road arenas he's played at (obviously not counting OKC) are shared by NBA and NHL teams. So it's probably spread to that league now too.