H2O Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, PhineasC said: Clearly some strongly invested doom porn fans in this forum. Kinda can see how’d there be an overlap with people who are obsessed with getting the strongest storms, hurricanes, etc. and want to see the biggest, baddest virus possible. Just like we all feel let down when that line of thunderstorms peters out, we feel sadness when COVID-19 ends up being less impactful than we had built it up to be in our minds. Now I know how CAPE feels when he throws cold water on snowstorm threats. This is where you just HAVE to come in and act like a jerk. First off, you, me and everyone else here aren’t epidemiologists. We are just people trying to understand the data that get published to see if there are any positive trends. That’s it. We rely on the experts that DO know about this stuff to guide us. They are doing what’s best for us just like your doctor would tell you to do x,y,z to feel better. If you don’t like being told you aren’t an epidemiologist then don’t act like you know more than they do. And using weather analogies is lol. You think people are emotional over things not being worse is just gross. It isn’t like a snowstorm that goes poof. I don’t want numbers to get worse. I want them better. This would be like me saying you are acting like some do in winter when they see the GFS have a snowstorm one day and then not and saying the model sucks and should be fixed and saying never trust the models. These models being used will only be as good as the data entered in. And since this country isn’t homogeneous the variables are constantly changing. What it shows today might not be valid for tomorrow. But that’s why we have smarter people telling us what to do. Yes, even people smarter than you. So trusting them matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said: Sorry that was IFR. I think that study also assumed a relatively low Ro at 2.2-2.6. Some studies I have seen have shown it as high as 5.7. There was a lot of questions about the German antibody study specificity from what I saw. The Iceland CFR of 0.4% might be the best case scenario imo. But even there, the population is homogeneous and healthy, very unlike a place like NYC or the Bible Belt where the fatality rate would undoubtedly be higher. Yes, this kind of depends on where you place the R0. You can be an “iceberg guy” if you think this has already spread very widely and the IFR is around 0.4%. That’s where I am (clearly). US will certainly be unique, as was Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gymengineer Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, PhineasC said: It dropped precipitously from its prior highs of 100k-200k deaths. Some wobbling at the new high point is expected. But the model is no longer predicting peaks in August with 200k dead last I checked. It was showing in the 80,000’s when the 100,000-240,000 number was being thrown out by the task force. It went up to the 90,000’s, dropped down to around 60,000 and now is up to around 68,800. There were articles written about how no one could figure out where the 100,000 to 240,000 range came from. In any case, the model is not working out on the back side of the peak for Italy and Spain. The model is incapable of showing a gradual descent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, supernovasky said: I watched his report yesterday and what his public health expert said was, they take the daily numbers and use it to train the model from the days before. The local numbers. That makes perfect sense. Why would the model in Idaho use national numbers? Why would anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, PhineasC said: The local numbers. That makes perfect sense. Why would the model in Idaho use national numbers? Why would anyone? I don’t think I’ve asserted that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, mappy said: No, not sort of. Cuomo shouldn't be looking at nationwide numbers to decide how to reopen New York State. Would it be fair for him to look at regional numbers? Like Tri-State and surrounding NE states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, supernovasky said: But it probably doesn’t. It probably means social distancing is working. But you seem very invested in the idea that the denominator is something freakishly high and that we are already approaching herd immunity. There’s not a single respected scientist claiming that right now. Plenty of respected scientists believe the total infected number is far higher than we thought. There are some great articles you can read out of Stanford, for example. Scientists across the globe are starting to say this now. That’s why we are even discussing reopening. If social distancing was all that stood between us and millions of US deaths, reopening wouldn’t even be on the table. This isn’t my idea. I didn’t come up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wonderdog Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, H2O said: Would it be fair for him to look at regional numbers? Like Tri-State and surrounding NE states Around densely populated areas, by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, supernovasky said: I don’t think I’ve asserted that? OK, so you just made the case for why many localities in the US can start to reopen. Last time I brought that up, your retort was that “thousands are dying every day!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, mappy said: No, not sort of. Cuomo shouldn't be looking at nationwide numbers to decide how to reopen New York State. Sorry just reread this. I don’t think I ever said Cuomo should be looking at national numbers to reopen NYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, supernovasky said: I watched his report yesterday and what his public health expert said was, they take the daily numbers and use it to train the model from the days before. they take daily national numbers and use that to train a model for local predictions? 4 minutes ago, H2O said: Would it be fair for him to look at regional numbers? Like Tri-State and surrounding NE states Sure. Its a good visual on spread, but its not complete. How can you put incomplete numbers into a model and expect a reasonable outcome? would you put incomplete numbers in one of your water line surveys and tell your work that its all good, that line wont be impacted if someone digs nearby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldereagle Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Pretty spot on with the doom porn analogy, sir. There has to be some correlation between people who seem to hope for disastrous weather events to those possibly "rooting" for more deadly viral tolls. People need to chill out on taking offense to opinions with which they may disagree. It is a forum, after all, theoretically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, gymengineer said: It was showing in the 80,000’s when the 100,000-240,000 number was being thrown out by the task force. It went up to the 90,000’s, dropped down to around 60,000 and now is up to around 68,800. There were articles written about how no one could figure out where the 100,000 to 240,000 range came from. In any case, the model is not working out on the back side of the peak for Italy and Spain. The model is incapable of showing a gradual descent. I think some of this might be a function of fatalities from days previous being recorded for that day. So you end up seeing deaths lag longer than the modeling thinks they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, PhineasC said: OK, so you just made the case for why many localities in the US can start to reopen. Last time I brought that up, your retort was that “thousands are dying every day!” Thousands are dying every day, I’m not sure how that means many localities can start to reopen right now - many public health officials are making the decisions based on regional information. I trust the public health officials will reopen based on the numbers they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, WxWatcher007 said: Getting even closer to home. A friend lost his younger brother last night and my sister likely has it. Was told by two doctors she doesn’t need a test because she’s not in a high risk group and doesn’t have severe enough symptoms. If she does, it’s just a matter of time before I get it. Have you guys been locked down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, WxWatcher007 said: Getting even closer to home. A friend lost his younger brother last night and my sister likely has it. Was told by two doctors she doesn’t need a test because she’s not in a high risk group and doesn’t have severe enough symptoms. If she does, it’s just a matter of time before I get it. I’m so sorry... stay strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, WxWatcher007 said: Getting even closer to home. A friend lost his younger brother last night and my sister likely has it. Was told by two doctors she doesn’t need a test because she’s not in a high risk group and doesn’t have severe enough symptoms. If she does, it’s just a matter of time before I get it. sorry to hear, friend. Hugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: Thousands are dying every day, I’m not sure how that means many localities can start to reopen right now - many public health officials are making the decisions based on regional information. I trust the public health officials will reopen based on the numbers they have. LOL ok back to saying nation wide numbers should drive local decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, supernovasky said: Thousands are dying every day, I’m not sure how that means many localities can start to reopen right now - many public health officials are making the decisions based on regional information. I trust the public health officials will reopen based on the numbers they have. which is it? nationwide numbers decide, or local numbers decide? you're kind of flipping back and forth here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, PhineasC said: LOL ok back to saying nation wide numbers should drive local decisions. No, what I am saying is, I’m not sure how you can get to the conclusion that many localities can start to open right now when the reality is, most are moving in the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, mappy said: which is it? nationwide numbers decide, or local numbers decide? you're kind of flipping back and forth here. No, regional numbers decide and I’m sure public health officials are adequately taking the numbers in to make the decision. I was responding to Phineas assertion that many localities can start to reopen right now (a statement of the at large picture) with my own statement of the at large picture (I’m not sure we are at the level yet where we can say many can start to reopen when we are not seeing anything close to that, and instead seeing extensions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: No, what I am saying is, I’m not sure how you can get to the conclusion that many localities can start to open right now when the reality is, most are moving in the other direction. Have you looked at where the majority of those deaths are coming from? NY area and nursing homes. There are some other smaller hotspots around but the majority of the country is at a far lower level. The death hot spots are not at all spread out evenly. Maybe that’s causing the confusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, PhineasC said: Have you looked at where the majority of those deaths are coming from? NY area and nursing homes. There are some other smaller hotspots around but the majority of the country is at a far lower level. The death hot spots are not at all spread out evenly. Maybe that’s causing the confusion? Actually the nursing home data is being undercounted, that’s been reported on heavily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 16, 2020 Author Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: No, regional numbers decide and I’m sure public health officials are adequately taking the numbers in to make the decision. I was responding to Phineas assertion that many localities can start to reopen right now (a statement of the at large picture) with my own statement of the at large picture (I’m not sure we are at the level yet where we can say many can start to reopen when we are not seeing anything close to that, and instead seeing extensions). But even regional numbers shouldn't decide, thats still too big of a scope...in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: No, regional numbers decide and I’m sure public health officials are adequately taking the numbers in to make the decision. I was responding to Phineas assertion that many localities can start to reopen right now (a statement of the at large picture) with my own statement of the at large picture (I’m not sure we are at the level yet where we can say many can start to reopen when we are not seeing anything close to that, and instead seeing extensions). I don’t think you understand what I am saying. I am not advocating a national reopening. I am saying county by county. In that scheme, nation wide daily death counts are totally unhelpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: Actually the nursing home data is being undercounted, that’s been reported on heavily. That further supports my point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/nyregion/coronavirus-nj-andover-nursing-home-deaths.html the situation in nursing homes is so bad :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinInTheSky Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, mappy said: But even regional numbers shouldn't decide, thats still too big of a scope...in my opinion. Depends on how interconnected the areas are. Borders are porous in the US. Unless they somehow start enforcing county checkpoints. Which seems unlikely but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 Just now, supernovasky said: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/nyregion/coronavirus-nj-andover-nursing-home-deaths.html the situation in nursing homes is so bad :-/ They are the target demographic for this virus. That’s exactly why you can’t extrapolate these daily death counts across the country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gymengineer Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said: I think some of this might be a function of fatalities from days previous being recorded for that day. So you end up seeing deaths lag longer than the modeling thinks they should. But then the total should be ultimately close to correct if it’s just about a lag. In other words, the reality reflecting a lag should have a lower peak (because deaths are going to counted later) than the original model projection. Italy’s already gone over what was the upper bound *final* total of the uncertainty range from the model’s projection a few days ago. Here’s a pretty clear twitter thread about the symmetrical “forcing” in the IHME model and how it’s not working past peak for Italy, Spain, and New York: https://mobile.twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1250304069119275009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts