TSA Numbers
11-20-2020, 05:19 AM
#1431
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by AirlineAnalyst
"There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world."
That is empirically false.
Here are academic articles relating to Global Stringency Index and reduction of COVID cases and deaths.
1) Data from 170 Countries
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...OVID-19_Deaths
The primary outcome was deaths related to COVID-19, measured both in terms of maximum daily deaths and growth rate of daily deaths. Results: For each day of delay to reach an SI 40, the average daily growth rate in deaths was 0.087 percentage points higher (0.056 to 0.118, P<0.001).
2) Data from 125 Countries
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...sures_Mattered
Significant negative relationships are revealed for stringency index and lockdown date supporting the notion that lock down and social distanc-ing measures mattered and were effective.
3) Tradeoffs between health infrastructure and full lockdown in Taiwan and New Zealand.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...044-4/fulltext
Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly in the domains of early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use. This timely and vigorous response allowed Taiwan to avoid the national lockdown used by New Zealand.
For some reason, I think that the link you provided to the "Foundation for Economic Education" - a libertarian think-tank - may not be the best source of health policy and outcomes.
And while you and I can both point to individual countries that may be exceptions - the academic, peer-reviewed research overwhelmingly refute your statement that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world."
"in lieu of empirical scientific data." Great stuff.
That is empirically false.
Here are academic articles relating to Global Stringency Index and reduction of COVID cases and deaths.
1) Data from 170 Countries
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...OVID-19_Deaths
The primary outcome was deaths related to COVID-19, measured both in terms of maximum daily deaths and growth rate of daily deaths. Results: For each day of delay to reach an SI 40, the average daily growth rate in deaths was 0.087 percentage points higher (0.056 to 0.118, P<0.001).
2) Data from 125 Countries
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...sures_Mattered
Significant negative relationships are revealed for stringency index and lockdown date supporting the notion that lock down and social distanc-ing measures mattered and were effective.
3) Tradeoffs between health infrastructure and full lockdown in Taiwan and New Zealand.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...044-4/fulltext
Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly in the domains of early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use. This timely and vigorous response allowed Taiwan to avoid the national lockdown used by New Zealand.
For some reason, I think that the link you provided to the "Foundation for Economic Education" - a libertarian think-tank - may not be the best source of health policy and outcomes.
And while you and I can both point to individual countries that may be exceptions - the academic, peer-reviewed research overwhelmingly refute your statement that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world."
"in lieu of empirical scientific data." Great stuff.
The 2nd paper you cite emphasized lockdown dates (most of the western world missed out on that).
The 3rd paper you cite is about New Zealand and Taiwan. I’m glad they’ve had such success, but I don’t think what smallish islands can do can be replicated in larger densely populated countries, especially in the West.
11-20-2020, 08:43 AM
#1432
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
The first paper you cite is from the summer and has little relevance to the 2nd and 3rd surges. Germany and Italy looked great then, their mitigation measures have failed now.
The 2nd paper you cite emphasized lockdown dates (most of the western world missed out on that).
The 3rd paper you cite is about New Zealand and Taiwan. I’m glad they’ve had such success, but I don’t think what smallish islands can do can be replicated in larger densely populated countries, especially in the West.
The 2nd paper you cite emphasized lockdown dates (most of the western world missed out on that).
The 3rd paper you cite is about New Zealand and Taiwan. I’m glad they’ve had such success, but I don’t think what smallish islands can do can be replicated in larger densely populated countries, especially in the West.
Your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
First paper: Regarding the second and third wave - simplistically, the nature of academic research/statistical analysis is that you have to formulate hypotheses, gather data, perform analysis, and either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis at a certain probability threshold.
While the lessons from the second and third wave may reveal different conclusions - you can't publish high-quality, peer-refereed, research in the middle of that event occurring. So yes, that research is from July and from the first wave. I don't see how you can undertake and publish research while the event is ongoing: It's similar to writing a complete recap of the SuperBowl during half-time. The results of research were tested at a P value of 0.001.
In the interim both of your specific cases (Germany, and Italy) loosened their restrictions after the first wave. I would disagree that Italy "looked great then". They were one of the hardest hit countries in the first wave.
Second paper: Again your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
That lock-down date is an important determinant but it was not the only conclusion of the research. If you read the entire paper, you can see that "The implications of the research is that lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered."
This is a conclusion independent of lockdown date.
Ideally, you can take early interventions and that would ultimately reduce the stringency of lockdowns required. But in the absence of early interventions, lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered.
I think it is a defeatist view to think that if we didn't do it early enough, that it doesn't make sense to make efforts at all.
Third paper: The third paper was intended to rebut your comment that "therefore to say mask wearing doesn’t hurt anyone, or to advocate it is benign, is absurd."
Respectfully - I think that your comment is absurd. All the theories regarding O2 oxygenation or asphyxiation have been thoroughly refuted. While other lockdown measures can be debated, the fact that you emphatically state that advocation of "mask usage as benign" is an "absurd" concept, I think is absurd.
Below is a summary of the pros and cons of mask usage.
The cons of which include:
- a false sense of security
- limited evidence that non-medical masks are effective as a source control (versus recipient control)
- no established standards for non-medical face mask manufacture.
While these are fair critiques, none are actively harmful like you claim (i.e. opposite of benign).
En masse, I think reasonable people would weigh the above pros and cons of mask usage and determine that mask usage is at least "benign" when weighing everything.
I realize people don't like wearing masks - I don't like wearing them either but when I weigh the pros and cons, it's a clear choice.
I think I've made my points and my POV clear - most of the answers can be gleaned from the research if you read it fully.
11-20-2020, 09:53 AM
#1433
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 39
Getting back to TSA numbers - great deal of pessimism abounds.
For perspective:
To really put it in to a different perspective, I made the below chart.
For every day that the value is 100%, that is a day that we hit a new daily record high on the 7-Day Rolling Average basis. Right now we are 97.5% of our prior record achieved on October 30th (36.9% / 37.9% = 97.5%). Within striking distance.
The progress is slow but I'm optimistic. Sure, there will be periods of downturns (it would be great to have linear upward growth but not likely) but every single prediction about quagmires, and stalled growth, and summer ending, and nationwide protests/rioting leading to huge drops have been proven false.
Nothing has really stalled us from hitting new highs - within a few weeks we even manage to surpass the record spikes of Independence Day and Labor Day and set new records on regular normal days. We have a continual upward march towards new records.
I'll listen to the new round of pessimistic guesses about nationwide lockdowns - but none of the prior guesses has up until now been reflected in the data to depress travel for more than a fleeting week or two.
For perspective:
- We are now at 36.9% on a 7-Day Rolling Average basis.
- The highest we reached ever post-April was 37.9% on a 7-Day Rolling Average basis.
To really put it in to a different perspective, I made the below chart.
For every day that the value is 100%, that is a day that we hit a new daily record high on the 7-Day Rolling Average basis. Right now we are 97.5% of our prior record achieved on October 30th (36.9% / 37.9% = 97.5%). Within striking distance.
The progress is slow but I'm optimistic. Sure, there will be periods of downturns (it would be great to have linear upward growth but not likely) but every single prediction about quagmires, and stalled growth, and summer ending, and nationwide protests/rioting leading to huge drops have been proven false.
Nothing has really stalled us from hitting new highs - within a few weeks we even manage to surpass the record spikes of Independence Day and Labor Day and set new records on regular normal days. We have a continual upward march towards new records.
I'll listen to the new round of pessimistic guesses about nationwide lockdowns - but none of the prior guesses has up until now been reflected in the data to depress travel for more than a fleeting week or two.
11-20-2020, 11:30 AM
#1434
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Position: Pilot
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by AirlineAnalyst
Your tone appeared respectful (or at least cordial) so I hope my response does as well.
Your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
First paper: Regarding the second and third wave - simplistically, the nature of academic research/statistical analysis is that you have to formulate hypotheses, gather data, perform analysis, and either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis at a certain probability threshold.
While the lessons from the second and third wave may reveal different conclusions - you can't publish high-quality, peer-refereed, research in the middle of that event occurring. So yes, that research is from July and from the first wave. I don't see how you can undertake and publish research while the event is ongoing: It's similar to writing a complete recap of the SuperBowl during half-time. The results of research were tested at a P value of 0.001.
In the interim both of your specific cases (Germany, and Italy) loosened their restrictions after the first wave. I would disagree that Italy "looked great then". They were one of the hardest hit countries in the first wave.
Second paper: Again your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
That lock-down date is an important determinant but it was not the only conclusion of the research. If you read the entire paper, you can see that "The implications of the research is that lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered."
This is a conclusion independent of lockdown date.
Ideally, you can take early interventions and that would ultimately reduce the stringency of lockdowns required. But in the absence of early interventions, lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered.
I think it is a defeatist view to think that if we didn't do it early enough, that it doesn't make sense to make efforts at all.
Third paper: The third paper was intended to rebut your comment that "therefore to say mask wearing doesn’t hurt anyone, or to advocate it is benign, is absurd."
Respectfully - I think that your comment is absurd. All the theories regarding O2 oxygenation or asphyxiation have been thoroughly refuted. While other lockdown measures can be debated, the fact that you emphatically state that advocation of "mask usage as benign" is an "absurd" concept, I think is absurd.
Below is a summary of the pros and cons of mask usage.
The cons of which include:
While these are fair critiques, none are actively harmful like you claim (i.e. opposite of benign).
En masse, I think reasonable people would weigh the above pros and cons of mask usage and determine that mask usage is at least "benign" when weighing everything.
I realize people don't like wearing masks - I don't like wearing them either but when I weigh the pros and cons, it's a clear choice.
I think I've made my points and my POV clear - most of the answers can be gleaned from the research if you read it fully.
Your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
First paper: Regarding the second and third wave - simplistically, the nature of academic research/statistical analysis is that you have to formulate hypotheses, gather data, perform analysis, and either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis at a certain probability threshold.
While the lessons from the second and third wave may reveal different conclusions - you can't publish high-quality, peer-refereed, research in the middle of that event occurring. So yes, that research is from July and from the first wave. I don't see how you can undertake and publish research while the event is ongoing: It's similar to writing a complete recap of the SuperBowl during half-time. The results of research were tested at a P value of 0.001.
In the interim both of your specific cases (Germany, and Italy) loosened their restrictions after the first wave. I would disagree that Italy "looked great then". They were one of the hardest hit countries in the first wave.
Second paper: Again your original comment that "There is no positive correlation between reduction in COVID cases and death as mitigation measures are increased in the western world." is refuted by the data and published research.
That lock-down date is an important determinant but it was not the only conclusion of the research. If you read the entire paper, you can see that "The implications of the research is that lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered."
This is a conclusion independent of lockdown date.
Ideally, you can take early interventions and that would ultimately reduce the stringency of lockdowns required. But in the absence of early interventions, lockdown and stringency measures implemented by governments around the world worked and mattered.
I think it is a defeatist view to think that if we didn't do it early enough, that it doesn't make sense to make efforts at all.
Third paper: The third paper was intended to rebut your comment that "therefore to say mask wearing doesn’t hurt anyone, or to advocate it is benign, is absurd."
Respectfully - I think that your comment is absurd. All the theories regarding O2 oxygenation or asphyxiation have been thoroughly refuted. While other lockdown measures can be debated, the fact that you emphatically state that advocation of "mask usage as benign" is an "absurd" concept, I think is absurd.
Below is a summary of the pros and cons of mask usage.
The cons of which include:
- a false sense of security
- limited evidence that non-medical masks are effective as a source control (versus recipient control)
- no established standards for non-medical face mask manufacture.
While these are fair critiques, none are actively harmful like you claim (i.e. opposite of benign).
En masse, I think reasonable people would weigh the above pros and cons of mask usage and determine that mask usage is at least "benign" when weighing everything.
I realize people don't like wearing masks - I don't like wearing them either but when I weigh the pros and cons, it's a clear choice.
I think I've made my points and my POV clear - most of the answers can be gleaned from the research if you read it fully.
Suppression efforts in the US, aside from comprehensive lockdowns, have been largely a failure.
11-21-2020, 07:41 AM
#1438
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,512
TSA Numbers
2019 thanksgiving was in week 48
2020 thanksgiving is in week 48
So numbers should match up correctly. Which it hasn’t always for other holidays. So we should get an accurate comparison YOY.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2020 thanksgiving is in week 48
So numbers should match up correctly. Which it hasn’t always for other holidays. So we should get an accurate comparison YOY.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-21-2020, 07:45 AM
#1439
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
What week of the year was thanksgiving this year?
What week is it this year?
Are the YOY number going to match up correctly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What week is it this year?
Are the YOY number going to match up correctly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-21-2020, 07:48 AM
#1440
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by flyinthrew
Because it’s matched to day of week, and Thanksgiving is always the last Thursday of the month, it should be as about perfectly matched as literally any holiday on the calendar.
Yep. I was editing while your quoted. We should get accurate YOY for the holiday. Which is nice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
