Coronavirus math
Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said in an interview aired on Tuesday that the virus met all the criteria for a nightmare scenario.
I will yield to your concern on this. However, I have some questions/ statements.Quote: OnceDearI suggest that unless someone can cite credible mathematical evidence, that this is probably a controversial subject outside the remit of this forum.
TLDR: No. Let's not do that here.
Are we no longer allowed to talk about possible controversial subjects on this forum?
I was asking for a discussion about virology science. I don't even know how we could have a proper covid-19 discussion without that aspect being a part of the discussion.
I don't know how it's any more controversial than talking about herd immunity or the debate about wearing masks. Do we have any scientific mathematical evidence regarding heard immunity and this particular virus? I would certainly like to know if people think regarding all of this. FYI someone else originally brought up and this isn't the first time someone's mentioned it, and I can't imagine it would be the last, especially if that person wasn't reading this particular thread. If the virus doesn't weaken, I just can't fathom how this is not going to get much, much worse as time goes by.
from the article:
"More than 1,500 new cases were reported along with 25 new deaths in the past 24 hours, officials said."
experts are stating that the new cases are not simply the result of more testing being done - they point to lax adherence to new protocols
hospitals are making plans for a crisis - they are not saying a coming crisis is a definite thing, but a distinct possibility
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-making-comeback-arizona-three-weeks-after-governor-lifted-stay-n1229436
Quote: AxelWolfI will yield to your concern on this. However, I have some questions/ statements.
Are we no longer allowed to talk about possible controversial subjects on this forum?
I was asking for a discussion about virology science. I don't even know how we could have a proper covid-19 discussion without that aspect being a part of the discussion.
I don't know how it's any more controversial than talking about herd immunity or the debate about wearing masks. Do we have any scientific mathematical evidence regarding heard immunity and this particular virus? I would certainly like to know if people think regarding all of this. FYI someone else originally brought up and this isn't the first time someone's mentioned it, and I can't imagine it would be the last, especially if that person wasn't reading this particular thread. If the virus doesn't weaken, I just can't fathom how this is not going to get much, much worse as time goes by.
It's safe to discuss the math so here goes.
Herd immunity works (kinda). All it really means is everyone gets it pretty much and then the survivors have herd immunity.
It's the old fashioned way of dealing with pandemic. Also results in lots of death.
Both Covid-19 and Spanish Flu have a 2% mortality rate. Granted we are learning new things about Covid-19 but that has been the given percentage based on what we currently know.
Spanish Flu resulted in fifty million dead! But herd immunity worked (just with fifty million dead behind it)
In the USA Spanish Flu killed 675,000 people over the course of a year.
Covid-19 has killed 112,000 so far in just three months and that's with social distancing.
Spanish Flu resulted in a shutdown not by order of the government but by simple fear (the shutdowns came too late with parades being held that caused entire cities to be infected)
Should also point out I suppose that Spanish Flu main age category was 18-24. It hit the young extremely hard and came during war time. That's important because wartime caused it to spread so rapidly (troop movements and dispersal, soldiers returning home with it, etc)
Still, Herd immunity is just too scary a proposition imo.
Quote: darkozIt's safe to discuss the math so here goes.
Both Covid-19 and Spanish Flu have a 2% mortality rate.
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! COVID-19 has death rate which is UNKNOWN at present. Since there are many who have had it but do not know it, we have little idea what the true denominator is. Most extrapolations have the death rate per infection at less than 1%. The death rate in my neck of the woods for those that chose to be tested at over 5%! I know of a bunch of people that had mild symptoms that chose NOT to be tested. Some of it might have been selfishness.... true 14 day quarantine if tested positive versus social distancing if not tested.
As far as Spanish Flu death rate, no way to know, but modern medicine is far advanced from a century ago. Maybe half those that died of Spanish Flu would survive today with ventilators, better antibiotics for concurrent infections, better control of diabetes, etc....
Thanks AxelWolf. Perfectly valid question/statement.Quote: AxelWolfI will yield to your concern on this. However, I have some questions/ statements.
Are we no longer allowed to talk about possible controversial subjects on this forum?
I was asking for a discussion about virology science. I don't even know how we could have a proper covid-19 discussion without that aspect being a part of the discussion.
I don't know how it's any more controversial than talking about herd immunity or the debate about wearing masks. Do we have any scientific mathematical evidence regarding heard immunity and this particular virus? I would certainly like to know if people think regarding all of this. FYI someone else originally brought up and this isn't the first time someone's mentioned it, and I can't imagine it would be the last, especially if that person wasn't reading this particular thread. If the virus doesn't weaken, I just can't fathom how this is not going to get much, much worse as time goes by.
Quote: site homepage"The goal of the site is to be an informative travel guide about Las Vegas. It is also a spinoff of the casino odds web site WizardOfOdds.com, with an emphasis on the gambling scene in Las Vegas. "
Quote: rule 19"Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19)."
Rule 19 is not just about political statements and remember that the original draft was much stricter. It's about topics that are controversial and generally outside the remit of this forum.
It seems to me that there is some partisan alignment in opinions about how this coronavirus should be handled and time after time, I see discussion of coronavirus behaviours used as a proxy for political argument. I'm just trying to rein it back with some moderate moderation.
I can see that it's perfectly valid to discuss how the virus might impact on Las Vegas, it's tourist industry and casinos elsewhere. Lets just not waste forum resources on controversies that don't have even a tenuous relationship with the forum's purpose.
Quote: SOOPOONOOOOOOO!!!!!!! COVID-19 has death rate which is UNKNOWN at present. Since there are many who have had it but do not know it, we have little idea what the true denominator is. Most extrapolations have the death rate per infection at less than 1%. The death rate in my neck of the woods for those that chose to be tested at over 5%! I know of a bunch of people that had mild symptoms that chose NOT to be tested. Some of it might have been selfishness.... true 14 day quarantine if tested positive versus social distancing if not tested.
As far as Spanish Flu death rate, no way to know, but modern medicine is far advanced from a century ago. Maybe half those that died of Spanish Flu would survive today with ventilators, better antibiotics for concurrent infections, better control of diabetes, etc....
And yet with 112,000 dead in three months with social distancing we are nearing the 675,000 dead in the USA from Spanish Flu.
112,000 dead with the curve affected by the lockdowns.
I do agree the mortality rate is still unknown but it's not completely up in the air. We know it's not 10% for example. The precise death rate will be determined but it's not going to be some wild number off
Quote: darkozAnd yet with 112,000 dead in three months with social distancing we are nearing the 675,000 dead in the USA from Spanish Flu.
112,000 dead with the curve affected by the lockdowns.
I do agree the mortality rate is still unknown but it's not completely up in the air. We know it's not 10% for example. The precise death rate will be determined but it's not going to be some wild number off
My point was that in a "math" thread you posted the 2% rates of death of both Spanish Flu and COVID-19 as accepted facts. Just not true.
For what it's worth, I think the raw number of deaths is not as important as the % of the population that died. There are around 330 million alive now in the US, only around 100 million in 1918. So I'd say 675k dead then is around TWENTY times more than 112k dead now.
Quote: SOOPOOMy point was that in a "math" thread you posted the 2% rates of death of both Spanish Flu and COVID-19 as accepted facts. Just not true.
For what it's worth, I think the raw number of deaths is not as important as the % of the population that died. There are around 330 million alive now in the US, only around 100 million in 1918. So I'd say 675k dead then is around TWENTY times more than 112k dead now.
Yeah I did the math awhile back. In terms of population percentage lost compared to 1918, we have to have 2.08M Americans die. We sure as hell better come under that number!
Quote: SOOPOOMy point was that in a "math" thread you posted the 2% rates of death of both Spanish Flu and COVID-19 as accepted facts. Just not true.
For what it's worth, I think the raw number of deaths is not as important as the % of the population that died. There are around 330 million alive now in the US, only around 100 million in 1918. So I'd say 675k dead then is around TWENTY times more than 112k dead now.
That can't possibly be the way to break it down.
What you are saying is if Covid-19 were to kill the same number of people as the Spanish Flu, it's not as deadly because we have a bigger population now.
So if
1918 Spanish Flu = 675,000 dead
2019 Coronavirus = 675,000 dead.
Spanish Flu was worse?
Nobody wants to hear we had as many peoples die as the Spanish Flu but don't worry it was really much less in adjusted population.
Quote: mcallister3200Seriously? Of course proportionately is the correct way to break it down to put things in context. If you live in a town of 60,000 people obviously 5,000 people dying of anything would be much more devastating to that city than 5,000 people dying in a city of 2 million. Same thing as someone losing $500 dollars playing blackjack who bets $25 a hand is completely different than someone losing $500 who bets $300 per hand. Percentage of patients recovered in a clinical trial better context than total number of patients recovered without stating how many patients in the trial, and on and on.
That's just a way of putting blinders on.
So if one million Americans die from Coronavirus that's going to be touted as BETTER than the Spanish Flu because it's a smaller percentage of the current population.
From a human perspective that's just mumbo-jumbo nonsense. A mathematical way of minimalizing something.
You can and should do that with certain things like economy, but not with death.
Quote: darkoz
You can and should do that with certain things like economy, but not with death.
Why do you think death by Covid is worse than other deaths? Over 1 million people died in the last 10 days why aren't those deaths as significant to you as the Covid deaths?
Quote: DRichWhy do you think death by Covid is worse than other deaths? Over 1 million people died in the last 10 days why aren't those deaths as significant to you as the Covid deaths?
I never said that.
Quote: darkozI never said that.
I didn;t mean to imply that you said that. Everyone is only talking about the 100,000 Covid deaths over the past few months when over 100,000 people die every day. The Covid deaths are insignificant to the total deaths.
Quote: DRichI didn;t mean to imply that you said that. Everyone is only talking about the 100,000 Covid deaths over the past few months when over 100,000 people die every day. The Covid deaths are insignificant to the total deaths.
I have said many times the difference with covid is it's contagious.
I'm not going to contract a case of car crash or your liver disease.
And yes there are other diseases being fought but this one is highly contagious. It spreads fast, unseen and exponentially.
That's what is making the world take notice over other death issues
Quote: OnceDearI suggest that unless someone can cite credible mathematical evidence, that this is probably a controversial subject outside the remit of this forum.
TLDR: No. Let's not do that here.
This has been a controversial subject for months now. It is a pity that those that spread inflammatory made up statistics have not been held accountable. Does anyone guess what a 2% mortality rate looks like? Thank God for Soopoo standing up to this, I would have been suspended, again.
Quote: DeMangoThis has been a controversial subject for months now. It is a pity that those that spread inflammatory made up statistics have not been held accountable. Does anyone guess what a 2% mortality rate looks like? Thank God for Soopoo standing up to this, I would have been suspended, again.
A 2% death rate would be less than half as bad as we currently have in the USA as of known data right now.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
We currently are at 5.6%
Or are you suggesting John's Hopkins is spreading inflammatory made up statistics?
Quote: darkozA 2% death rate would be less than half as bad as we currently have in the USA as of known data right now.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
We currently are at 5.6%
Or are you suggesting John's Hopkins is spreading inflammatory made up statistics?
No, we are at 5.6% of reported cases. Unreported cases are many times reported.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, we are at 5.6% of reported cases. Unreported cases are many times reported.
Deaths are under-counted from Covid-19 as well.
So not sure what your point is.
Once deaths that should have been attributed to Covid-19 are factored in it will probably be worse.
NYS saw a huge uptick in heart attack during the Coronavirus pandemic. Studies are already underway to see if the underlying cause was Covid-19
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/01/us/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-new-jersey.html
Quote: darkozDeaths are under-counted from Covid-19 as well.
Not really. If anything they are very over counted. Money comes with a virus death, so it is listed as a cause even if just one of many causes.
Quote:So not sure what your point is.
My point is quit thinking this is the end of the world. It is not even close to that.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really. If anything they are very over counted. Money comes with a virus death, so it is listed as a cause even if just one of many causes.
My point is quit thinking this is the end of the world. It is not even close to that.
I never said it was the end of the world.
Just do we get past this with a lot more dead is the question.
I have supplied links to my statements of the last two posts while others refute what I claim without links.
Interesting!
Quote: darkozA 2% death rate would be less than half as bad as we currently have in the USA as of known data right now.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
We currently are at 5.6%
Or are you suggesting John's Hopkins is spreading inflammatory made up statistics?
CDC came in at .26 %
Quote: DeMangoCDC came in at .26 %
Which takes me back to my original argument.
Percentage is a way to minimize or maximize the situation.
112,000 dead in three months is scary so better to just go with a percentage.
Regardless of percentage dead we are still facing a disease that is easy to contract that has resulted in over a hundred thousand dead in the space of twelve weeks
Quote: darkozWhich takes me back to my original argument.
Percentage is a way to minimize or maximize the situation.
112,000 dead in three months is scary so better to just go with a percentage.
Regardless of percentage dead we are still facing a disease that is easy to contract that has resulted in over a hundred thousand dead in the space of twelve weeks
We are three months into a likely 24-month event. The pandemic is just getting started. Wishing it was past tense doesn't make it so. I listed a half dozen or so underreporting articles over at VCT. Below are a few more. There's no trick to this, and not much debate. There are probably 20 legitimate pieces that have been written on the undercounting of virus deaths. Google the May 12 Fauci interview. I think it was in the Washington Post. The Reuters piece listed second below is not about undercounting; it's about the latest projections moving forward.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/coronavirus-deathtoll-underreporting/2020/05/28/id/969506/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-idUSKBN23I06D
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/04/14/underreporting-of-covid-19-deaths-in-the-us-and-europe/#6056800f82d7
I hate to be bothered posting this stuff, as it's available to anyone who wants to find it. I feel obligated because people post personal thoughts and opinions without backing any of it up with interviews of epidemiologists or macro pieces from health professionals. Those personal thoughts and feelings can lead others to wrong conclusions if they trust the messengers. That is irresponsible.
(Or of course successful vaccine, lifesaving treatments)
Quote: rxwineI won't consider it really over until you can multiply the current number of cases reported x 10, and it then resolves to herd immunity. See, I'm being plenty reasonable. We aren't there yet.
(Or of course successful vaccine, lifesaving treatments)
Will be updating my Leronlimab thread in next day or two
There was an unexpected CC (Conference Call) this afternoon. Waiting for the bullet points to be posted but the drug is apparently ON FIRE!
We are nearing that life saving treatment!!!
So basically, I should just make sure I find a way to add in Las Vegas to my covid-19 talk.Quote: OnceDearThanks AxelWolf. Perfectly valid question/statement.
Rule 19 is not just about political statements and remember that the original draft was much stricter. It's about topics that are controversial and generally outside the remit of this forum.
It seems to me that there is some partisan alignment in opinions about how this coronavirus should be handled and time after time, I see discussion of coronavirus behaviours used as a proxy for political argument. I'm just trying to rein it back with some moderate moderation.
I can see that it's perfectly valid to discuss how the virus might impact on Las Vegas, it's tourist industry and casinos elsewhere. Lets just not waste forum resources on controversies that don't have even a tenuous relationship with the forum's purpose.
Quote: darkozThat can't possibly be the way to break it down.
What you are saying is if Covid-19 were to kill the same number of people as the Spanish Flu, it's not as deadly because we have a bigger population now.
So if
1918 Spanish Flu = 675,000 dead
2019 Coronavirus = 675,000 dead.
Spanish Flu was worse?
Nobody wants to hear we had as many peoples die as the Spanish Flu but don't worry it was really much less in adjusted population.
Please tell me you are kidding me! OF COURSE that is what I'm telling you! An equal number of dead people now is only 1/3 as bad as what it was when the population was 1/3 as much! As an AP, I am stunned this simple math concept evades you.
EVERYONE wants to hear what the percentage of dead people is! If NYC had 100 deaths, we ain't blinking. If Newfane had 100 deaths, it is a big freaking deal!
Come on dark..... think!!!!!
Quote: DRichI didn;t mean to imply that you said that. Everyone is only talking about the 100,000 Covid deaths over the past few months when over 100,000 people die every day. The Covid deaths are insignificant to the total deaths.
Car crash deaths, cancer deaths , heart disease deaths.. all static numbers. We know pretty much how many it will be.
Covid went from 0 to 120,000 in 3 months.
If deaths from car crashes suddenly was 10x the usual amount in each of the next three months, do you think it would become concerning ?
Quote: SOOPOOPlease tell me you are kidding me! OF COURSE that is what I'm telling you! An equal number of dead people now is only 1/3 as bad as what it was when the population was 1/3 as much! As an AP, I am stunned this simple math concept evades you.
EVERYONE wants to hear what the percentage of dead people is! If NYC had 100 deaths, we ain't blinking. If Newfane had 100 deaths, it is a big freaking deal!
Come on dark..... think!!!!!
I understand the concept.
I am disagreeing with it's use.
This country will be a disaster zone if we reach THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEAD as the Spanish Flu and no comparison by Percentage is gonna make people feel better.
It's a very disgusting method for hiding the true disaster.
Quote: darkozI understand the concept.
I am disagreeing with it's use.
This country will be a disaster zone if we reach THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEAD as the Spanish Flu and no comparison by Percentage is gonna make people feel better.
It's a very disgusting method for hiding the true disaster.
I don’t see SOOPOO hiding the disaster. And it is the definition of damming with faint praise to say “well it’s better than the Spanish Flu!”
Quote: darkozI understand the concept.
I am disagreeing with it's use.
This country will be a disaster zone if we reach THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEAD as the Spanish Flu and no comparison by Percentage is gonna make people feel better.
It's a very disgusting method for hiding the true disaster.
Not arguing whether or not 675k dead makes the country a disaster zone. My argument is if you believe 675k makes it a disaster zone today, then I'm saying it was a disaster zone in 1918 when it hit 225k.
The world population is around 8 billion. If deaths hit 675k but is controlled thereafter, I don't consider it a 'disaster zone'. Certainly sad and unfortunate, but 675k out of 8 billion is less than 1 in 10,000, right?
The numerator is important, but so is the denominator. I've mentioned this before.... Malaria is a totally treatable disease. Probably 400,000 deaths this year IN AFRICA ALONE. COVID-19 will not approach that number in Africa....
Quote: unJonI don’t see SOOPOO hiding the disaster. And it is the definition of damming with faint praise to say “well it’s better than the Spanish Flu!”
It's like asking how many passengers were on an airplane after it crashes.
"Sixty people died!"
"How many were on the plane?"
"240"
"Oh, that's not so bad. Only a quarter of the passengers died. What a relief. I thought it was a bad situation"
Quote: darkozRegardless of percentage dead we are still facing a disease that is easy to contract that has resulted in over a hundred thousand dead in the space of twelve weeks
So we go from a mortality rate of 2.0% to .26% and now that doesn’t matter.
I think we all are looking to see what happens in two weeks, if it truly is easy to contract after all the riots, protests and funerals and of course casino openings.
Quote: darkozIt's like asking how many passengers were on an airplane after it crashes.
"Sixty people died!"
"How many were on the plane?"
"240"
"Oh, that's not so bad. Only a quarter of the passengers died. What a relief. I thought it was a bad situation"
Again. SOOPOO didn’t say the bolded (my bold). You are doing a straw man argument.
Let me try it this way..... Would you consider that if there is a 1 in 1,000 chance something bad may happen, or a 3 in 1,000 chance something bad may happen, that you might make a different decision given those two scenarios?
Or perhaps simpler, change it to 1 in 10 versus 3 in 10?
Edit: Trump Plaza Casino Is Being Demolished, Atlantic City Mayor Doesn’t Think It Is Happening Quickly Enough
Quote: ChumpChangeAre casinos gonna require you to sign something so you won't sue them if you get COVID-19 from coming there or is that only at the President's properties?
Won't protect them if they do. What will protect them is if they follow CDC and other government guidelines.
Quote: SOOPOOYou are hurting my brain, dark!
Let me try it this way..... Would you consider that if there is a 1 in 1,000 chance something bad may happen, or a 3 in 1,000 chance something bad may happen, that you might make a different decision given those two scenarios?
Or perhaps simpler, change it to 1 in 10 versus 3 in 10?
Of course you take the 1 in 10.
You are missing my point. We are talking about death here.
Let me give you my scenario for you.
A man is pointing a gun at you and and six of your buddies. You calculate he only has six bullets so worst case scenario if you rush at him he kills all of you.
Another six buddies show up. You now calculate you have worse case scenario only half of your group will die when you rush him.
Your odds are much better. Do you feel comfortable when you rush him that only six of you will probably die?
If to avoid any death you could just hand over your money would you say, nah, I will take my chances that only six of us are gonna die?
Quote: darkozOf course you take the 1 in 10.
You are missing my point. We are talking about death here.
Let me give you my scenario for you.
A man is pointing a gun at you and and six of your buddies. You calculate he only has six bullets so worst case scenario if you rush at him he kills all of you.
Another six buddies show up. You now calculate you have worse case scenario only half of your group will die when you rush him.
Your odds are much better. Do you feel comfortable when you rush him that only six of you will probably die?
If to avoid any death you could just hand over your money would you say, nah, I will take my chances that only six of us are gonna die?
I doubt Soopoo is missing your point. And I think you’re leaving out the part of your scenario where you hand over the money and he shoots four or five of you anyway instead of five or six.
Quote: darkoz...We are talking about death here.
Let me give you my scenario for you.
A man is pointing a gun at you and and six of your buddies. You calculate he only has six bullets so worst case scenario if you rush at him he kills all of you.
Another six buddies show up. You now calculate you have worse case scenario only half of your group will die when you rush him.
Your odds are much better. Do you feel comfortable when you rush him that only six of you will probably die?
If to avoid any death you could just hand over your money would you say, nah, I will take my chances that only six of us are gonna die?
Do you live your life based on the worst possible case of any scenario?
Quote: darkozOf course you take the 1 in 10.
You are missing my point. We are talking about death here.
Let me give you my scenario for you.
A man is pointing a gun at you and and six of your buddies. You calculate he only has six bullets so worst case scenario if you rush at him he kills all of you.
Another six buddies show up. You now calculate you have worse case scenario only half of your group will die when you rush him.
Your odds are much better. Do you feel comfortable when you rush him that only six of you will probably die?
If to avoid any death you could just hand over your money would you say, nah, I will take my chances that only six of us are gonna die?
The average person has less than a 1% chance of dying from Covid, if you are telling me my chances are now less than that I would definitely rush the gunman.
Quote: mcallister3200I doubt Soopoo is missing your point. And I think you’re leaving out the part of your scenario where you hand over the money and he shoots four or five of you anyway instead of five or six.
Thanks.
How about this, darkoz..... You get a billion dollars but risk death 1 out of 100. I don't know you, but I'd guess you take the chance. 99 times you get a billion unscathed. 1 time you would die. I think most people not already wealthy would take the chance.
If it was 50-50 you die, I'd say most people do not take the chance. There are certainly many who would.
People DO put a value on a life, even their own. Maybe not as clearly as I'm asking you.
I don't want unnecessary deaths.
I don't want business failures.
I don't want government insolvency.
I don't want to not be able to interact with others like I used to.
I factor all of my wants, not in equal amounts of course, and come up with what I'd want government policy to be, and also what my own policy to be. I want the economy to open up with some social distancing requirements. I understand that there will be more deaths because of the opening up than if we never open up. It doesn't mean I will go to a casino now, even if the government allows them to open. It doesn't mean I'll go to a mosh pit when it opens. But I'll sit in a restaurant. I'll visit friends in their houses. I want to be able to decide for myself what to do and what not to do.
Given my wife's disease, she can take a "maintenance drug" that costs about $15/month and that gives her a 10-year survival rate of about 70%. There is another option, a "maintenance drug" that you take by infusion that costs more than $20,000/ month and that gives a 10-year survival rate of about 85%.
There is simply no way to get a health insurance company to approve the infusion drug on the basis of a 10-year survival rate that is 15% higher. In fact, doctors do not prescribe the more expensive drug (unless there is some extraordinary circumstance like the patient can't tolerate the cheaper drug) because they do not want to go through the process of battling the insurance company (with a near-zero chance of getting the drug improved.)
I'm not complaining about this. The world is what it is - despite what Bill Ryan wants it to be.
