The resolution by extension of its framework, promotes unlimited drunk-driving and any other conduct, otherwise considered a reckless endangerment of person's health and lives in the public space.This framework is the unrestricted movement of individuals without regard to exigent conditions suggesting the hazard. John F. Bechtol;707-623-6005------ Original message------From: Jeffrey Yunes jeff@yunes.us [lpsf-discuss]Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 10:12 AMTo: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com;Cc: LPC Discussion List;Honor (Mimi) Robson;Bill Lopez;Jennifer Imhoff;Jonathan Jaech;Zachary Moore;David Bowers;Brandon Nelson;Kenneth Brent Olsen;Baron Bruno;Robert Imhoff;Boomer Shannon;Ted Brown;LPC ExCom List Executive Committee;Kalish Morrow;Tyler Kuskie;Kevin Shaw;Dawn B.;Alex Appleby;Jeff Hewitt;Wendy Hewitt;Bill Hajdu;Angela McArdle;Chuck Hamm;Susan Marie Weber;Jason Wu;Justin Quigley;Brian Thiemer;Rachel Johnson(?);Steven Haug;CALibs@yahoogroups.com;LibertarianHorizons@groups.io;Jon Prosser;Dawn Brosius;Richard Fast;Paul Vallandigham;LPSF Meetup;California Liberty;Subject:Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Motion to Put Forward a Resolution Regarding the Stay At Home Orders and A Press Release (LPC)
> with Stanford’s study showing infections at 50-85 times expected but without serious symptoms, The result from the Stanford 85x study is entirely explained by statistical error.https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalenceThis shelter-in-place is a good opportunity to practice critical reading of scientific literature and comparing your conclusions to those of other experts.On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:38 PM, 'mike@dennz.com' mike@dennz.com [lpsf-discuss] > wrote:
Here’s some material in support of your position
It is often claimed that "flattening the curve" does not lead to a reduction in the total number of individuals infected
during the course of the disease; rather, the infections would only spread over a longer period of time. This is not correct if e. g. the
SIR model can be applied to the infection.
The picture on the right shows for 1000 individuals (at the beginning: 3 infected, 997 susceptible for the disease) the impact
of three different infection rates (SIR model):
Above: A high infection rate results at the end in R ( 200 ) ≈ 999 {\textstyle R(200)\approx 999}
<image001.png>individuals
having recovered after an infection, i. e. virtually all individuals were affected during the course of the disease.
Middle (reduction to half of the infection rate): At the end, R ( 250 ) ≈ 993 {\textstyle R(250)\approx 993}
<image001.png>individuals
have recovered after being infection, i. e. almost all individuals were still affected by the disease.
Bottom (reduction to a quarter): R ( 400 ) ≈ 893 {\textstyle R(400)\approx 893}
<image001.png>individuals
have recovered after an infection, and S ( 400 ) ≈ 107 {\textstyle S(400)\approx 107}
<image001.png>are
still susceptible, i.e. 10.7 % were not affected during the course of disease.
If it's possible to prevent infections extremely effectively, a significant number of individuals can actually be protected
from being infected.
However, with Stanford’s study showing infections at 50-85 times expected but without serious
symptoms, what does that say about infection rates? They were very high but unmeasured. Not sure that fact supports the “flattening the curve” logic above. Perhaps the SIR model can’t be applied in this situation.
Mike
Zachary Moore >; David Bowers >; Brandon Nelson >; Kenneth Brent Olsen >; Baron Bruno >; Robert Imhoff >; Boomer Shannon
>; Ted Brown >; LPC ExCom List Executive Committee >; Kalish Morrow >; Tyler Kuskie >; Kevin Shaw >; Dawn B. >;
Alex Appleby >; Jeff Hewitt >; Wendy Hewitt >; Bill Hajdu >; Angela McArdle >; Chuck Hamm >; Susan Marie Weber >;
Jason Wu >; Justin Quigley >; Brian Thiemer >; Rachel Johnson(?) >; Steven Haug >; CALibs@yahoogroups.com; LibertarianHorizons@groups.io; Jon Prosser >;
Dawn Brosius >; Richard Fast >; Paul Vallandigham >; LPSF Meetup >; California Liberty >