COVID-19 Talk

[PhineasC]

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. 

[PhineasC]

Just now, supernovasky said:

The fixation on rates, of which we do not know and will not know until the disease is well over, and if which is affected by population makeup (demographics, how many are overweight, how many have preexisting conditions), instead of on the ground reality of 2,400 dying daily, continues to baffle me.

 

Even in this magical world where Covid is just a flu with a 0.1% mortality rate which basically no scientist making this decision agrees with, 6-7% are susceptible to the flu any given year but everyone is susceptible to coronavirus, so it would be like having 10 flu seasons all at once in a tiny little time period.

The “rates” are what those public policy experts you trust so much are using to make these decisions, you know. They don’t just stare weeping at the death numbers and then make emotional decisions. Estimates of CFR and IFR are very important to decision making per region, along with testing rates, hospitalization rates, etc. all adjusted for age, underlying conditions and other factors. Total sadness levels have nothing to do with it. 

[ErinInTheSky]

1 minute 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. 

Honestly it’s a little insulting that you keep calling me and others doom porn fans. I want out. I have a surgery I need and two parents with strong preexisting conditions, I’m deacon for a church I want to return to services with, and I have a kid that has been stuck at home with me while I work. 
 

It’s not doom porn. It’s a respect for public health and a trusting of scientists and the science that guides the decision and makes what we are doing right now worth it.

[PhineasC]

3 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

 

Which models are we discussing? One study, from University of College London that supposed 2 million could die in the US without any intervention. I've seen anywhere from 60-80K modeled on IMHE through August with all the interventions in place and the model that the Trump Admin discussed had 100-240K. I'm not sure what time frame the last estimate was for, though. We're at 32K and it's tough to say we've peaked yet given we're not at the top of the curve. 

The IMHE model being used by the Federal government and most of the states. It has been pushing totals deaths downward and peak dates earlier with each update. If you watch the Cuomo briefings, he posts data from the model and he is saying NY is at peak, or perhaps even slightly past now. That’s the epicenter in the US right now. 

[ErinInTheSky]

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The “rates” are what those public policy experts you trust so much are using to make these decisions, you know. They don’t just stare weeping at the death numbers and then make emotional decisions. Estimates of CFR and IFR are very important to decision making per region, along with testing rates, hospitalization rates, etc. all adjusted for age, underlying conditions and other factors. Total sadness levels have nothing to do with it. 

The rates are one in a million things that go into their decisions and ultimate goal is to prevent and keep low that number that you call “weeping death numbers and total sadness levels”.

 

[mappy]

4 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

 

Which models are we discussing? One study, from University of College London that supposed 2 million could die in the US without any intervention. I've seen anywhere from 60-80K modeled on IMHE through August with all the interventions in place and the model that the Trump Admin discussed had 100-240K. I'm not sure what time frame the last estimate was for, though. We're at 32K and it's tough to say we've peaked yet given we're not at the top of the curve. 

I think early stuff, CFR numbers, etc. 

[PhineasC]

3 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Honestly it’s a little insulting that you keep calling me and others doom porn fans. I want out. I have a surgery I need and two parents with strong preexisting conditions, I’m deacon for a church I want to return to services with, and I have a kid that has been stuck at home with me while I work. 
 

It’s not doom porn. It’s a respect for public health and a trusting of scientists and the science that guides the decision and makes what we are doing right now worth it.

How many times in the last 24 hours have you asserted I’m being cavalier and calling this just the flu and being an armchair epidemiologist?

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Bah, it’s hard to think we’re really going to see fast decreases in hospitalization/death when we keep adding ~30,000 cases a day nationally. Really hoping to see that number drop off soon. 

[OSUmetstud]

Just now, mappy said:

I think early stuff, CFR numbers, etc. 

Yes, one study that showed no interventions showed 2 million dead. I don't understand how that's particularly relevant since we have done lots of intervention. It had an estimated CFR of 0.9%. I haven't seen enough to think that CFR is completely unreasonable. Have you? 

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, supernovasky said:

The rates are one in a million things that go into their decisions and ultimate goal is to prevent and keep low that number that you call “weeping death numbers and total sadness levels”.

 

The overall goal is to minimize deaths and prevent the country from spiraling into a depression that will also kill hundreds of thousands. We could minimize deaths from the virus to very low levels simply by staying closed forever. Clearly, that won’t work so the public health experts look for the best case scenario balancing all the needs. They definitely have more variables to look at optimizing than just the daily death rate. IFR and CFR by region will be very important in knowing when to reopen. The nation wide death numbers are pretty meaningless to deciding if a county in Nebraska is ready to open some businesses back up. I hope you see that. 

[mappy]

3 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Yes, one study that showed no interventions showed 2 million dead. I don't understand how that's particularly relevant since we have done lots of intervention. It had an estimated CFR of 0.9%. I haven't seen enough to think that CFR is completely unreasonable. Have you? 

I think the point being discussed is that we cannot trust the CFR numbers and use it as a good indicator moving forward. the data isnt complete. cases are going unreported. deaths are going unreported.

[PhineasC]

8 minutes ago, DCTeacherman said:

Bah, it’s hard to think we’re really going to see fast decreases in hospitalization/death when we keep adding ~30,000 cases a day nationally. Really hoping to see that number drop off soon. 

I hope you understand that those numbers are very, very affected by how much testing we decide to do, when, and where. I think some people are going to be shocked when we have widespread serum testing and we find out millions already had this disease. I can’t imagine still looking at the daily test results and assuming that’s every case for the day. Come on. 

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, PhineasC said:

I hope you understand that those numbers are very, very affected by how much testing we decide to do, when, and where. I think some people are going to be shocked when we have widespread serum testing and we find out millions already had this disease. I can’t imagine still looking at the daily test results and assuming that’s every case for the day. Come on. 

I think there’s a balance to be struck between “the data is limited” and “the data is meaningless”. Most public health experts seem to operate under the first statement whereas you’re really invested in pushing the second.

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

I hope you understand that those numbers are very, very affected by how much testing we decide to do, when, and where. I think some people are going to be shocked when we have widespread serum testing and we find out millions already had this disease. I can’t imagine still looking at the daily test results and assuming that’s every case for the day. Come on. 

Of course that’s not all the cases.  So far, in most places, only people that are pretty sick are getting tested.  That means 30,000 that are/were pretty sick got tested +, which IMO isn’t good. 

[PhineasC]

9 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Yes, one study that showed no interventions showed 2 million dead. I don't understand how that's particularly relevant since we have done lots of intervention. It had an estimated CFR of 0.9%. I haven't seen enough to think that CFR is completely unreasonable. Have you? 

You sure that is CFR and not IFR? That CFR is far lower than the CFR numbers from Italy used to justify the lockdowns, nevertheless. It’s also an average. CFR for those under 50 will be much lower than for those 70+ with COPD and obesity. Other studies from China, Germany, and Iceland predict IFRs ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. 

[mappy]

Just now, supernovasky said:

I think there’s a balance to be struck between “the data is limited” and “the data is meaningless”. Most public health experts seem to operate under the first statement whereas you’re really invested in pushing the second.

its not meaningless but its also not super helpful either. 

[gymengineer]

15 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The IMHE model being used by the Federal government and most of the states. It has been pushing totals deaths downward and peak dates earlier with each update. If you watch the Cuomo briefings, he posts data from the model and he is saying NY is at peak, or perhaps even slightly past now. That’s the epicenter in the US right now. 

Albeit not by much, the IHME model actually went up the last two updates. 

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, supernovasky said:

I think there’s a balance to be struck between “the data is limited” and “the data is meaningless”. Most public health experts seem to operate under the first statement whereas you’re really invested in pushing the second.

Public health experts are not using daily death numbers and skewed nationwide testing averages to make decisions. You really can’t use those rolled up numbers for real policy decisions. They really are meaningless for a disease that must be managed at the state and local level. Even the Feds are looking county by county. 

[PhineasC]

Just now, gymengineer said:

Albeit not by much, the IHME model actually went up the last two updates. 

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. 

[ErinInTheSky]

1 minute ago, mappy said:

its not meaningless but its also not super helpful either. 

It’s what we’ve got to work with for now.

 

I think a lot of the public experts are working with the reality on the ground at this point. Watching Cuomo’s briefings he seems to focus on the things we can verify. Deaths. Hospitalizations. Treatments or lack thereof. Critical patients.

 

Kind of like now casting vs model watching.

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, 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. 

Because what we are doing is working very well.

[OSUmetstud]

11 minutes ago, mappy said:

I think the point being discussed is that we cannot trust the CFR numbers and use it as a good indicator moving forward. the data isnt complete. cases are going unreported. deaths are going unreported.

Well sure, I agree. That study didn't use the reported CFR at the time either which i believe was 3.4%.

[PhineasC]

1 minute ago, supernovasky said:

It’s what we’ve got to work with for now.

 

I think a lot of the public experts are working with the reality on the ground at this point. Watching Cuomo’s briefings he seems to focus on the things we can verify. Deaths. Hospitalizations. Treatments or lack thereof. Critical patients.

 

Kind of like now casting vs model watching.

For his state. You keep posting the nation wide death numbers for each day as if they should be driving policy decisions in individual counties. 

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, mappy said:

As they should. The argument being made is the daily case counts and deaths SHOULD NOT BE USED to decide when to reopen. it has to be done on micro-scale levels

Sort of. From what I’ve heard from Cuomo, the daily case counts feed into the model and refine it daily.

[mappy]

Just now, supernovasky said:

Sort of. From what I’ve heard from Cuomo, the daily case counts feed into the model and refine it daily.

No, not sort of. Cuomo shouldn't be looking at nationwide numbers to decide how to reopen New York State. 

[PhineasC]

3 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

Because what we are doing is working very well.

It can also mean the denominator (total infected) is far, far higher than initially assumed which would drive the fatality rate way down and also start adding in herd immunity as a factor. There are multiple factors at work here. 

[OSUmetstud]

5 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

You sure that is CFR and not IFR? That CFR is far lower than the CFR numbers from Italy used to justify the lockdowns, nevertheless. It’s also an average. CFR for those under 50 will be much lower than for those 70+ with COPD and obesity. Other studies from China, Germany, and Iceland predict IFRs ranging from 0.2 to 0.9. 

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. 

[ErinInTheSky]

Just now, PhineasC said:

For his state. You keep posting the nation wide death numbers for each day as if they should be driving policy decisions in individual counties. 

I don’t think I ever argued that localities aren’t going to make decisions based on local data. Maybe not as much on a county level yet though, we just don’t have the testing data to do that I don’t think. Even Fauci supports different treatment of different areas.

[ErinInTheSky]

1 minute ago, mappy said:

No, not sort of. Cuomo shouldn't be looking at nationwide numbers to decide how to reopen New York State. 

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.

[ErinInTheSky]

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

It can also mean the denominator (total infected) is far, far higher than initially assumed which would drive the fatality rate way down and also start adding in herd immunity as a factor. There are multiple factors at work here. 

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.