In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak
-
I will only say that the IMHE model stays very consistent and in fact overall US death projections are down again this morning.
Vents in NY are of course projected to be 20% of Coumo’s main pitch lat week.
Hospital resources across the country, which are generally their visits, hospitalizations and revenues are down over 60%. It’s a bloodbath.
I think there is a big lag in test data which you are not seeing.
For IHME to forecast peaks this week in deaths and hospital resource this week and you to say more than two weeks from now, that is a huge spread.
-
Davis - Like I said, I’m hopefully wrong.
I’m violating one of my own rules rules here. Experts in a topic may well be wrong, but usually not in a way that is obvious to the layman.
But for now I will stand by this.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Davis - Like I said, I’m hopefully wrong.
I’m violating one of my own rules rules here. Experts in a topic may well be wrong, but usually not in a way that is obvious to the layman.
But for now I will stand by this.
If IMHE model doesn’t stand up to the next two or three days you won’t have to look at any more and all those people will be a distant memory. You are basically calling them soon to be irrelevant. It’s too close for the event itself for them to recover. I’ve seen lots of hubris in my life, I’m not betting in these personalities being so blind to the data. All models are wrong, only data speaks, here the data should be screaming at them.
-
No, if the models don’t hold up they’ll learn from that and adjust them. Try looking at this through a lens of science instead of politics. Turn the TV off if necessary.
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
No, if the models don’t hold up they’ll learn from that and adjust them. Try looking at this through a lens of science instead of politics. Turn the TV off if necessary.
Jon, try considering this. IMHE uses actual deaths as the basis of the model and not cases which are way underreported.
But this is your thread and you have set the goal posts and are apparently calling the shots at the skeptics. Should be fun.
-
I’m not ‘calling the shots’ I’m thinking out loud.
Why is all of this a ‘who’s up, who's down’ question for you? Don’t you have any native curiosity in the underlying topic?
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
I’m not ‘calling the shots’ I’m thinking out loud.
Why is all of this a ‘who’s up, who's down’ question for you? Don’t you have any native curiosity in the underlying topic?
Ok
-
The testing lag is a good point.
But other countries‘ data should also lag, no?
Taiwan and SK had about a 10-14 day gap from peak new cases to peak active cases, testing lags and all. Why wouldn’t we see that in our data?
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
Please do!
https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/
The second chart.
-
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
No R0 estimates there.
Sorry, I thought you were looking for cases by state, not R0.
@George-K said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
@jon-nyc said in In which jon-nyc stakes out an unconventional opinion on the Covid-19 outbreak:
No R0 estimates there.
Sorry, I thought you were looking for cases by state, not R0.
I continue to look for the native source for R(0) estimates and can’t find but they are out there by country and state and being used in many models. Check out Quartz I think their recent article might get you there.
-
Davis - Like I said, I’m hopefully wrong.
I’m violating one of my own rules rules here. Experts in a topic may well be wrong, but usually not in a way that is obvious to the layman.
But for now I will stand by this.
@jon-nyc “experts may be wrong, but usually not in a manner that’s obvious to the layman”
But that’s exactly what happened with the IMHE Models. I’ve pointed out multiple issues for over a week, and the actual numbers have supported my case so far, and they still haven’t adjusted for properly. Here are a few:
-
Population Density (take NYC out of the equation)
-
Public transportation vs private cars... NY became the epicenter it did because of the trains and subway.
-
Timing of the outbreak. We will cover this more seriously latet
-
-
I want to clarify something that might not have been clear from my earlier post.
If the effective R after social distancing measures is still greater than 1, we will see a decrease in the number of daily cases and active cases but it will only be temporary. Both new cases and active cases will decrease during the time the effective R is decreasing, but then will continue to grow indefinitely from the new, lower base.
I've attached here a stylized example. This shows R0 = 3.5 up through time interval 12, then it decreases to 1.5 over time intervals, then stays at 1.5 indefinitely. Don't worry about the actual case count, I just started with a random number. It's the trendiness that are important. Note that both new and active cases take a dive, then begin climbing again.
If our lockdown measures result in an R0 > 1, this will in fact happen to us, as sure as night follows day.
What's worse, is people will see that initial decrease and assume we're out of the woods. At that point people will begin to take lockdown less seriously, lobby hard for things to open again, etc. So the new R0 won't even stay at its 1.5 level very long before rising again.
I think odds are high that this is going to be our situation.
-
I’m officially doubling down on this.
Not only are we not below 1 now, but we aren’t going to go there any time soon.
In fact we’ll go the other way. People will think we beat this and start to relax.
When we look back from, say, the end of the year, we will not see April as the month with the most cases or the most deaths.
