Is the predictive model wrong?
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 14:20 last edited by
All models. See
Global Warmingclimate change. -
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 14:23 last edited by
I'd rather have them erring on the side of caution. This model may just be behind by a week or two. Either that or distancing has worked better than anyone thought.
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 14:36 last edited by
I'd have to imagine with most of the country essentially staying at home (really, really, really an unprecedented time we are in!), there's probably a much better impact on the virus than expected. Just think about those "scattering dots" diagrams of how a virus spreads and what if many of the dots are suddenly isolated? Massively good impact. Fingers crossed...
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 14:57 last edited by
Fingers crossed.
FWIW Cuomo discussed models they look at yesterday. He said the forecast for peak resource use varies from 7 days to 31 days. The IHME model is 7 days (April 9th peak).
We're still WAY under testing as evidenced by our 38% positive test rate. So I wouldn't be surprised if the models showing a later peak are more accurate. I don't know enough about the other states to comment.
Still, wasn't the IHME model supposed to be updated? Why wouldn't they update the curve with actuals?
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 15:17 last edited by
Two models NY is using besides the IHME.
No labels on y axes but if you eyeball it the numbers for today are in the right spot.
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 15:35 last edited by
I created a thread for this but deleted it. I didn't think it could be true.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Friday that 2,935 New Yorkers died from the coronavirus over the last 24-hours, the highest single increase in deaths since the outbreak began a few weeks ago.
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 15:40 last edited by
.........and they've updated the article. The change in bold.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Friday that 2,935 New Yorkers have died from the coronavirus so far with 562 new deaths over the last 24 hours
-
wrote on 3 Apr 2020, 15:50 last edited by
Impeach him!
-
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 10:21 last edited by
The more I look into this model the less I like it. It strikes me as more of a ‘technical analysis’ than a ‘fundamental analysis’ in that it’s basically a curve fitting exercise heavily relying on the Wuhan experience.
It seems to be predicting way too early of a peak and is overall too optimistic about our social-distancing measures.
I would love to see the details behind the McKinsey models.
-
The more I look into this model the less I like it. It strikes me as more of a ‘technical analysis’ than a ‘fundamental analysis’ in that it’s basically a curve fitting exercise heavily relying on the Wuhan experience.
It seems to be predicting way too early of a peak and is overall too optimistic about our social-distancing measures.
I would love to see the details behind the McKinsey models.
-
The more I look into this model the less I like it. It strikes me as more of a ‘technical analysis’ than a ‘fundamental analysis’ in that it’s basically a curve fitting exercise heavily relying on the Wuhan experience.
It seems to be predicting way too early of a peak and is overall too optimistic about our social-distancing measures.
I would love to see the details behind the McKinsey models.
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 12:28 last edited by@jon-nyc Which model? The covid19.healthdata.org model? I’ve been calling that model crap for the opposite reason. It undervalues decisions made by the general public and overvalues decisions handed down by the government.
-
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 12:52 last edited by
Yes that model. That’s not really the opposite of my view, I also think it overstates the effect of our lockdown.
-
Yes that model. That’s not really the opposite of my view, I also think it overstates the effect of our lockdown.
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 12:59 last edited by@jon-nyc do you have a link to the McKinsey models?
-
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 13:47 last edited by jon-nyc 4 Apr 2020, 13:47
They’re not public to my knowledge.
-
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 20:31 last edited by
-
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 20:44 last edited by LuFins Dad 4 Apr 2020, 20:45
I’d like to see the ventilator numbers. And Florida is way too early to take anything from a 1 day aberration
-
I’d like to see the ventilator numbers. And Florida is way too early to take anything from a 1 day aberration
wrote on 4 Apr 2020, 20:55 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Is the predictive model wrong?:
Florida is way too early to take anything from a 1 day aberration
Absolutely. We've seen 1 day dips before.