treston58 said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

Deaths are the only stat that matters, not the number of cases. I don't see deaths increasing exponentially.

---

You can't view this graph? Are you blind or just unwilling to open your eyes?

Quote:

---

crowman2010 said:

And 12k of the 14k are in NY...

---

Texas is a whole 5 days away from where New York is right now. At the end of the week, we will be where NY is right now.

---

Projected. And by WHOM?

---

By the data. Draw a straight horizontal line from the latest Texas date to NY. Since the slopes are similar, it's clear we are about 5 data away when this graph was made. We've bent the curve a bit since then. I'll start putting today's date on the chart as well.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Flagged. You have a doctor on the front line seeing this stuff with his own eyes. Not the right person to be calling out.

---

Hey there is a thread on ratting out neighbors that violate some of the directives. Sounds like that might be of interest to you.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Bro

---

I'm not going to look back through 22 pages to find the original link for this chart.

Because, according to that chart label, every single dot on that thing is "projected". I know any one of my colleagues would have dropped a hammer on my head if I put that thing out if some data was projected and some was actual...And I would deserve it for putting out a ****ty data report....

Fair enough. The original chart was actually just US with the trend lines based on the data. Not broken out by the states. In fact, I noted how close of an R^2 term of 1.0 we were getting.

30wedge said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Flagged. You have a doctor on the front line seeing this stuff with his own eyes. Not the right person to be calling out.

---

Hey there is a thread on ratting out neighbors that violate some of the directives. Sounds like that might be of interest to you.

---

Yeah. I find it insulting that someone would insinuate that a doctor hopes to see more death in front of him so he can score more internet message board points. Sick

I mean I am not saying that it's impossible, I just am not sure how a random physician is going to know this information unless somebody is going around blabbing about misreporting this information.

Fenrir said:

---

I mean I am not saying that it's impossible, I just am not sure how a random physician is going to know this information unless somebody is going around blabbing about misreporting this information.

---

A Doc is going to know their patients and if CDCs determinations/numbers don't jive with what they witness then it'll be pretty obvious. None of this happens in a vacuum.

I mean you're right. A doc is going to know their patients. Which is why they fill out the cause of death unless they are uncertain in which case the ME gets involved.

So is your doc friend misreporting this information or is one of their colleagues?

maybe someone could explain... I dont work in a hospital or anything... but wouldnt the charts record what is being reported? or the medical coding?

Would that be different for each hospital or are there more layers up?

This goes back to a question I asked earlier. Is there an international reporting policy on this?

We based our early models on international data.

barnyard1996 said:

---

If one thing is certain, we are all going to die.

---

But what happens then?

I'm not sure. I've heard that different countries reported deaths differently.

Rereading page 1 of this thread is eye opening.

I am glad Texas did not turn into NY. Not even close.

My prediction on page 1 seems to be one of the few that has a chance at being accurate

Matt Hooper said:

---

Rereading page 1 of this thread is eye opening.

I am glad Texas did not turn into NY. Not even close.

---

Props where props is due. Good decision mayor adler shutting down sxsw.

Patentmike said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

If one thing is certain, we are all going to die.

---

But what happens then?

---

Sup bro?

Fenrir said:

---

I mean you're right. A doc is going to know their patients. Which is why they fill out the cause of death unless they are uncertain in which case the ME gets involved.

So is your doc friend misreporting this information or is one of their colleagues?

---

A death certificate isn't ever going to say someone died of Coronavirus. It's going to name the functional mechanism of death (e.g. aneurysm, cardiac arrest, etc). That makes it easy for the CDC to, even if someone who dies has COVID 19, attribute the actual death to a comorbid condition if one exists. Same as far as hospitalization. They're hospitalized and documented based on their physical symptoms, while also noting a positive test. The CDC compiles the data and determines where to tally what.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Jesus ****ing Christ. Wake up. We will be LUCKY if it's only a few hundred thousand dead. LUCKY.

---

So are we still thinking this or not?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

Philip J Fry said:

---

I have no reason to think otherwise.

---

USA or World totals?

Matt Hooper said:

---

Rereading page 1 of this thread is eye opening.

I am glad Texas did not turn into NY. Not even close.

---

Agreed. It was not looking good about 5 days ago, but Texas has clearly bent the curve substantially.

Right now, we are below today's prediction. I've been through this enough now that I expect another update tonight. Will update accordingly when it happens.

He must be referring to US because if worldwide there would be absolutely no reason for any extra measures as flu kills 500,000 approximately worldwide per year. And speaking of the US clearly through early returns much sensationalism. Plenty of reasons to believe hundreds of thousands of deaths in US is not the trajectory.

I mean this with all respect, but could the folks that put out all the alarming projections last week send out a revision that might calm some peoples nerves and give a little hope?

You know like like the one today that said the UK deathprojections went from 500K to 20K?

Today, Abbott said there are 100 people in the hospital. One freakin hundred!

I'm sorry but that looks like "finessing" the data to get the desired outcome.

There's a number of ways to spot fraudulent data, and one of the most used is the lack of significant error or deviation, ie, a lack of true randomness. Its done in vote counting and the like where when votes are "rigged" by humans, people vastly underestimate the ability of true random numbers to be "streaky". In such instances, people often won't put a string a five or more similar consecutive entries. And when there's tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions, the odds of that being the case are literally zero. Hence, proof of fraud.

Not one data point on the fit line is off by any significant measure.

Now, I'm not claiming that the data shown is fraudulent. I'm merely stating that as of now, for a random process, measured by infallible humans, that data is way too perfect. It was fine when it was like one week. Thats possible, hell, even probable. But as the data continues to grow, its simply not likely in sense of the term (statistical or otherwise).

barnyard1996 said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

I have no reason to think otherwise.

---

USA or World totals?

---

CFR seems to be everyone's preferred method for estimating this thing.

Let's say that this virus somehow magically spreads to only 60 Million Americans (I'm not an expert, but I would think this number would be a lot higher). Right now, we have a death rate of 1.5% (For Reference Italy's CFR is 9.3%). Let's pretend that we get this down to .5% and beat South Korea with their 1.3% CFR...either through our advanced health care or from the fact that some people don't even realize they have it and don't report or get tested.

60,000,000 * 0.005 = 300,000.

I just have a hard time right now believing that those numbers are off by a factor of 10 somewhere in the happy direction.

I wish it was. Feel free to look at the data yourself. I'm just putting published values in a spreadsheet. The R2 value for the trendline is ridiculously good.

Thats my point. I dont buy the published data.

Viral infections are a naturally occurring phenomenon. Measurements and counts are done by humans, which make errors.

Someone is "massaging" the data before its published.

just look at basic stats. What's the largest residual? Now calculate the likelihood of seeing that in practice given the number of data points. I mean, the standard error on the counts has to be like 0.1% or some nonsense. Naturally occurrences just aren't that "Accurate". There's always more variability and often noise in the signal.

Edit to add, that I literally mean likelihood in the statistical sense, not the common vernacular.

Quote:

---

You know like like the one today that said the UK deathprojections went from 500K to 20K?

---

This is fake news. The death projection was 500k over many months without intervention and it wasn't changed. The 20l estimate was the update based on the implementation of social distancing measures.

Cumulative totals of large numbers across many states could be. The US line is neat, but the state lines are not. Lots of mini epidemics being overlaid to create the US figure, which evens it out. Pretty hefty claim to say the CDC is fudging the numbers of deaths.

I don't know what to tell you. If you can't believe the numbers that all of the news sources are using along with what each state is independently reporting, I'm don't think there's anything I can do to convince you.

For what it's worth, here's one source I use:
https://github.com/COVID19Tracking/covid-tracking-data/blob/master/data/states_daily_4pm_et.csv

I'm sure you also know that when you have enough variables, a natural normal distribution curve starts to present itself. I suspect that's what's happening with the noisy state data vs the very clean US data.

barnyard1996 said:

---

I mean this with all respect, but could the folks that put out all the alarming projections last week send out a revision that might calm some peoples nerves and give a little hope?

You know like like the one today that said the UK deathprojections went from 500K to 20K?

Today, Abbott said there are 100 people in the hospital. One freakin hundred!

---

If I'm reading that study correctly the UK numbers were adjusted based on what could be achieved with extensive social distancing measures.

I think, in Texas especially, we've dodged a bullet so far in large part due to the early cancellation of events and the measures put in place already, but I think the numbers are a bit skewed on the low side due to a very piss-poor job of testing in Texas. My concern for Texas right now is going to be the Houston area if people start spilling it over from Louisiana.

One of the things that truly sucks about this situation is that there will be absolutely no way to tell how many lives might have been saved from these measures. When it is all said and done, people be debating whether this was worth it. That doesn't bode well for the next time this happens, and with the global economy the way it is now I would expect it to happen again within a decade.

So all of the errors in each state are completely uncorrelated? Any correlation in the numbers should be reflected in some measurable variance in the trendline. And even then, 7 states? Even if they were all magically completely uncorrelated, we can calculate the probability that they all would precisely cancel out to yield a perfect trendline in the aggregate.


That data is being massaged before it ever makes to print.

He's only showing 7/50 states the others are not being plotted. I think you're way off base here, my friend.

Would you like me to pull up MATLAB and graph all 50 states for you?

There is simply no way anyone is massaging these numbers. What value would they have in doing that when it's so easily verifiable?