BlackGoldAg2011 said:questioning the validity of input data into a model is a perfectly reasonable exercise and an important step to any modeling. However, if any of y'all throwing stones at the modeling and data can't support your doubts with real evidence, please keep your opinions to yourself, or at very least out of a thread dedicated to models, plots, and data. (and no, a news article sharing your doubts but not backing those doubts up with facts and evidence is not evidence regardless of how reputable of a source it might be)Jet Black said:This. Hard to trust any of these numbers. Especially the mortality rate.Quote:
Garbage data in, garbage data out.
Going with what we have, I doubt we hit 50k deaths.
Also don't see anyway we are shutdown past April 30th.
Daily Charts
606,373 Views |
2786 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by AggieUSMC
bro, from the very first post in the creation of this forumBeat the Hell said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:questioning the validity of input data into a model is a perfectly reasonable exercise and an important step to any modeling. However, if any of y'all throwing stones at the modeling and data can't support your doubts with real evidence, please keep your opinions to yourself, or at very least out of a thread dedicated to models, plots, and data. (and no, a news article sharing your doubts but not backing those doubts up with facts and evidence is not evidence regardless of how reputable of a source it might be)Jet Black said:This. Hard to trust any of these numbers. Especially the mortality rate.Quote:
Garbage data in, garbage data out.
Going with what we have, I doubt we hit 50k deaths.
Also don't see anyway we are shutdown past April 30th.
Welcome! Please read before posting.
edit to add:Quote:
To be clear: This is not a place to post your opinion as fact or to post information not rooted in clear facts.
are you honestly encouraging the sharing of opinions not rooted in evidence and fact?
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
so even your analysis of the number of opinion posts on this thread is an opinion unsubstantiated by fact? and the problem isn't opinions, it's opinions that aren't based on any available evidence or facts. if you can't see that distinction I can't help youJet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
FIFYQuote:
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Guess you missed Dr. Birx yesterday.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/
All I had to do was Google the phrase in question. It's very nearly verbatim in the article.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/feds-classify-all-coronavirus-patient-deaths-as-covid-19-deaths/
Quote:
The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.
"There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney problem," she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. "Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.
"The intent is if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that," she added.
All I had to do was Google the phrase in question. It's very nearly verbatim in the article.
Way too much politics and bias on both sides. I use to do a lot of economic modeling of oil and gas projects and learned a lot about modeling assumptions:
- almost everyone makes the mistake of unintentionally introducing bias into a model - that bias may be from their education or experience, or their preconceived answer to the problem
- you can be very precise on many inputs, but one large unknown can totally wreak your model (ours was oil price , didn't matter how precise the geologist or engineer were on describing the reservoir)
- be careful when listening to "experts"....they are some of the most guilty of both of the above
So my observations on the Coronavirus models:
The 2 main factors that determine when the curve breaks over and flattens is modeling the transmission rate (number of people an infected person contacts and potentially infects) and modeling the number of people who already have the virus and thus can't catch it or transmit it to others (herd immunity). It's this later one that is the big unknown!
Because it was easier to measure and affect the first parameter by creating social distancing, that is the path all the "experts" took. It was all about flattening the curve (knowing that the lack of herd immunity would just delay spread until maybe a vaccine would be developed).
A combination of the real data coming back and new data being acquired is starting to show that many of the models were overestimating deaths and that the one big unknown (total number already infected) in all the models was probably underestimated - maybe significantly.
Looking back, if that one assumption was off, it may have driven us in the wrong direction. Would isolating only the at risk and letting the rest of the herd spread it have been the correct answer? Hopefully antibody testing will tell us which assumption was correct.
- almost everyone makes the mistake of unintentionally introducing bias into a model - that bias may be from their education or experience, or their preconceived answer to the problem
- you can be very precise on many inputs, but one large unknown can totally wreak your model (ours was oil price , didn't matter how precise the geologist or engineer were on describing the reservoir)
- be careful when listening to "experts"....they are some of the most guilty of both of the above
So my observations on the Coronavirus models:
The 2 main factors that determine when the curve breaks over and flattens is modeling the transmission rate (number of people an infected person contacts and potentially infects) and modeling the number of people who already have the virus and thus can't catch it or transmit it to others (herd immunity). It's this later one that is the big unknown!
Because it was easier to measure and affect the first parameter by creating social distancing, that is the path all the "experts" took. It was all about flattening the curve (knowing that the lack of herd immunity would just delay spread until maybe a vaccine would be developed).
A combination of the real data coming back and new data being acquired is starting to show that many of the models were overestimating deaths and that the one big unknown (total number already infected) in all the models was probably underestimated - maybe significantly.
Looking back, if that one assumption was off, it may have driven us in the wrong direction. Would isolating only the at risk and letting the rest of the herd spread it have been the correct answer? Hopefully antibody testing will tell us which assumption was correct.
This is correct, people confirmed as having the Covid 19 virus and who have died are probably getting grouped into Covid 19 deaths. If they are being perfectly coded and recorded, I doubt it - it's always an issue (and I don't think just the government classified this). Look at the leading causes of death in America, like cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia. It is not accurate to say that none of those million deaths only had one condition, the condition their death was linked to - many, if not most, have multiple conditions. Someone determines the main contributor regardless of other conditions, and into that bucket their death goes. Your comment is they are listed as Covid deaths regardless of other underlying issues - how would you recommend that be recorded? A Covid illness may last a month, are you suggesting those other conditions would have killed the person within that same month long time frame? A week later? A year later? Does that impact how it is coded?Jet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
I love accurate data and feel a huge bulk of our resources should be put into testing for active virus and antibodies, if the tests are accurate, so we can paint a better picture of what this disease is, it's history, if the world (not just US) has responded correctly, and what the best path forward is. BUt I don't think the challenges with coding the deaths are done intentionally to inflate things, or paint an incorrect picture, but it's just a challenge when coding a death for someone with a number of conditions. I do like seeing good data on the deaths - by age, what other contributors existed, etc - but I feel nearly everyone would have had a longer life without Covid 19. And I feel another huge statistic, which drove many of the worldwide actions, was the hospitalization rate for all ages, all conditions, without a death and how that would overwhelm resources. I want to keep seeing good data on that.
A snippet from a study, not specific to Covid:
Inaccuracies of Death Certificate Diagnoses
In reality, death certificate diagnoses are often inaccurate as a result of either erroneous clinical diagnoses or incorrect or inadequate coding of the diagnosis.5 This has been a longstanding problem. In 1955, James et al6 found that in a comparison of 1889 death certificates with corresponding autopsy reports, only 52% of cases had full agreement between 3-digit ICD codes. A 1980 series of 257 autopsied cases found that 42% of cases had improper recording of the underlying cause of death.7 Malignant neoplasms were underreporled by 10%, and vascular diseases were overreported by 10%.
More recently, Roulson et al8 performed a meta-analysis of articles published between 1980 and 2004 that studied discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses. The authors found that the rate of misdiagnosis has not significantly improved since the 1960s: At least one third of death certificates are likely to be incorrect, and 50% of autopsies produce findings unsuspected before death, underlining the importance of autopsy. These studies show that the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of cause-of-death reporting have been an issue over the past several decades and continue to present a major problem.
It can be argued that autopsy discrepancy studies such as those outlined above are biased because the autopsied cases may have been those in which the cause of death was particularly obscure clinically. However, in a 1980 study by Cameron et al,9 an autopsy rate of 65% was reached for 6 months to try to diminish the effect of selection bias. They found that in 38% of cases the cause of death was still discrepant between the autopsy findings and the death certificate, even when clinicians were "certain" or "fairly certain" about their diagnoses. Interestingly, in cases in which clinicians indicated that they would not normally have requested an autopsy, the discrepancy rate was similar to those cases in which they would have. This finding indicates that it is difficult for a clinician to predict which cases will have discrepant diagnoses.
Furthermore, a 1992 study in East Germany by Modelmog et al10 autopsied 96.5% of deaths in a 1-year time period in the city of Goerlitz and compared these results with the death certificates. The authors found that 47% of diagnoses on the death certificate differed from that on autopsy and that, in 30% of all subjects, these differences crossed a major disease category. Interestingly, this study confirmed that diseases of the circulatory system were likely to be overdiagnosed. These results are similar to those of autopsy studies, which do not randomly sample patients or include all subjects, indicating that selection bias alone is unlikely to account for their results.
Are there any charts available of number of tests performed by day? That is, noting the day the test was performed and not the day the results were received. I'm having a hard time figuring what the actual daily testing capacity is and if that capacity goes up and down or only up.
I wish the CDC would conduct random testing of people to get an idea how many unreported cases there are.
HotardAg07 said:
I was disappointed to find out the link he shared was from a 5 days old article and he has posted no current data to support his claim. If true, would be interesting.
It's possible. Here's a story from New Orleans about an interesting way the state is tracking cases. They are taking people who would later test positive, tracking back to the date they first had symptoms, and then comparing that number to the confirmed number of cases on the same date.
On March 26th there were 2,305 confirmed cases in Louisiana, but 12,138 people who later test positive had symptoms on that date. That means the number of people that actually had the virus in Louisiana on March 26th was 5 times higher than the number of confirmed cases.
https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_713daede-7922-11ea-8352-b3ab70fc397c.html
Jet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Let's say you're getting cancer treatment when you get the flu. Previously, your odds of beating the cancer were pretty good with treatment. However, with a compromised immune system, you can't beat the flu and die.
Did cancer kill you, or the flu?
Let's say you're a diabetic who manages their insulin. You get CV19 and end up in the ICU. The CV19 is causing hypoxia that screws with your organs, causes complications with your diabetes, and you die.
Did your diabetes kill you, or CV19?
If you didn't have cancer or diabetes you probably wouldn't have died from the flu or covid 19. On the other hand, if you wouldn't have gotten covid 19, you probably wouldn't have died from the cancer or diabetes, at least not immediately. Every situation is different. If you have stage 4 cancer, and are in the final stages, then get C19, it's probably the cancer that did you in.ABATTBQ11 said:Jet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Let's say you're getting cancer treatment when you get the flu. Previously, your odds of beating the cancer were pretty good with treatment. However, with a compromised immune system, you can't beat the flu and die.
Did cancer kill you, or the flu?
Let's say you're a diabetic who manages their insulin. You get CV19 and end up in the ICU. The CV19 is causing hypoxia that screws with your organs, causes complications with your diabetes, and you die.
Did your diabetes kill you, or CV19?
You could not be more wrong. It is true that many of these people with underlying issues would die form these issues anyways, but the number that would have died from these issues this month is probably fairly low. The COVID-19 exacerbated their issues and they died because of them. Classifying them as COVID-19 deaths is the correct way to determine their death. The amount of these people that would have died in April from their issues that are not COVID but classified as COVID is fractional. Even if COVID hastened their death by just one month it is still COVID as the main culprit.Jet Black said:If you didn't have cancer or diabetes you probably wouldn't have died from the flu or covid 19. On the other hand, if you wouldn't have gotten covid 19, you probably wouldn't have died from the cancer or diabetes, at least not immediately. Every situation is different. If you have stage 4 cancer, and are in the final stages, then get C19, it's probably the cancer that did you in.ABATTBQ11 said:Jet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Let's say you're getting cancer treatment when you get the flu. Previously, your odds of beating the cancer were pretty good with treatment. However, with a compromised immune system, you can't beat the flu and die.
Did cancer kill you, or the flu?
Let's say you're a diabetic who manages their insulin. You get CV19 and end up in the ICU. The CV19 is causing hypoxia that screws with your organs, causes complications with your diabetes, and you die.
Did your diabetes kill you, or CV19?
So uh.....what's going on in Nevada?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
PWestAg18 said:
So uh.....what's going on in Nevada?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
That's gonna be a typo. I'm guessing they had 225 new cases today, they had 134 yesterday.
Surely a typo or huge backlog. The source links for Nevada are broken unfortunately.PWestAg18 said:
So uh.....what's going on in Nevada?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
ETFan said:Surely a typo or huge backlog. The source links for Nevada are broken unfortunately.PWestAg18 said:
So uh.....what's going on in Nevada?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
376 new cases today for Nevada.
Dont think Nevada even has the capacity to test 20,000 person/day.
Irwin M. Fletcher said:You could not be more wrong. It is true that many of these people with underlying issues would die form these issues anyways, but the number that would have died from these issues this month is probably fairly low. The COVID-19 exacerbated their issues and they died because of them. Classifying them as COVID-19 deaths is the correct way to determine their death. The amount of these people that would have died in April from their issues that are not COVID but classified as COVID is fractional. Even if COVID hastened their death by just one month it is still COVID as the main culprit.Jet Black said:If you didn't have cancer or diabetes you probably wouldn't have died from the flu or covid 19. On the other hand, if you wouldn't have gotten covid 19, you probably wouldn't have died from the cancer or diabetes, at least not immediately. Every situation is different. If you have stage 4 cancer, and are in the final stages, then get C19, it's probably the cancer that did you in.ABATTBQ11 said:Jet Black said:
My guess is there are multiple opinion posts on this thread, so why don't you relax.
The government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the virus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that may have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Let's say you're getting cancer treatment when you get the flu. Previously, your odds of beating the cancer were pretty good with treatment. However, with a compromised immune system, you can't beat the flu and die.
Did cancer kill you, or the flu?
Let's say you're a diabetic who manages their insulin. You get CV19 and end up in the ICU. The CV19 is causing hypoxia that screws with your organs, causes complications with your diabetes, and you die.
Did your diabetes kill you, or CV19?
I'm pretty sure that is what I said except for the fractional and low part. Do you have data to back that up? 1600 people die from cancer every day in the US, 50k a month. If you would have died from cancer in 2 months but got Covid (or it could even be the flu) and died in one, you died from cancer imo. I don't think it's low or fractional.
I wish this thread had more graphs.
Scratch that, I wish this thread had only graphs
Scratch that, I wish this thread had only graphs
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
30,997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PJYoung said:ETFan said:Surely a typo or huge backlog. The source links for Nevada are broken unfortunately.PWestAg18 said:
So uh.....what's going on in Nevada?
worldometers.info/coronavirus has them at +22,000 new cases so far today. As of yesterday they had a total of 2,000. Y'all think this is a typo or some major backlog in reporting from the state?
376 new cases today for Nevada.
About a week ago same thing happened for Wisconsin. Someone even asked about it and it corrected.
Not probably, it 100% is only their projection for a single wave. Everyone who is using that model to understand the current situation needs to know that it has a lot of caveats that will not be met.Red Fishing Ag93 said:SirLurksALot said:
Looks like heathdata.org downgraded their death projections again. It's at 60,415 now. It was at 82,000 on Monday and 90,000 last week.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
Probably just the first wave of deaths. IMO.
It assumes no change in social distancing until August. That is not going to happen. I'm a 100% advocate in the measures we're taking now and wish we had done them sooner, and I have zero hope that we maintain this through the entire summer.
T0he moment those are relaxed then this models projections go right out the window. Thats not to say its not useful because it can tell us a lot about where we are currently, but it does nothing to model secondary waves because it assumes we stay this way until the outbreak is over.
From the FAQ of the above referenced model:
Does your model show the effect of social distancing and other measures?
The data we have from several locations that have implemented social distancing suggest that they are effective. Our model compares the degree to which social distancing measures have been implemented to how long it takes for daily deaths to reach their maximum and the curve to start to go down.
Back to top
Will we need social distancing until there is a vaccine?
Our model suggests that with social distancing maintained throughout the end of the first wave of the epidemic could occur by early June.
The question of whether there will be a second wave of the epidemic will depend on what we do to avoid reintroducing COVID-19 into the population. By the end of the first wave of the epidemic, a substantial proportion of the population of the United States and EEA countries are likely to still be susceptible to the disease and thus measures to avoid a second wave of the pandemic prior to vaccine availability will be necessary. Maintaining some social distancing measures could be supplemented or replaced by nation-wide efforts such as mass screening, contact tracing, and selective quarantine. We are continuing to develop our modeling framework and are exploring alternate scenarios where social distancing measures are incompletely applied or are lifted before the projected first wave of the epidemic has passed. We will make these projections available as soon as development is complete.
Does your model show the effect of social distancing and other measures?
The data we have from several locations that have implemented social distancing suggest that they are effective. Our model compares the degree to which social distancing measures have been implemented to how long it takes for daily deaths to reach their maximum and the curve to start to go down.
Back to top
Will we need social distancing until there is a vaccine?
Our model suggests that with social distancing maintained throughout the end of the first wave of the epidemic could occur by early June.
The question of whether there will be a second wave of the epidemic will depend on what we do to avoid reintroducing COVID-19 into the population. By the end of the first wave of the epidemic, a substantial proportion of the population of the United States and EEA countries are likely to still be susceptible to the disease and thus measures to avoid a second wave of the pandemic prior to vaccine availability will be necessary. Maintaining some social distancing measures could be supplemented or replaced by nation-wide efforts such as mass screening, contact tracing, and selective quarantine. We are continuing to develop our modeling framework and are exploring alternate scenarios where social distancing measures are incompletely applied or are lifted before the projected first wave of the epidemic has passed. We will make these projections available as soon as development is complete.
MBAR said:Not probably, it 100% is only their projection for a single wave. Everyone who is using that model to understand the current situation needs to know that it has a lot of caveats that will not be met.Red Fishing Ag93 said:SirLurksALot said:
Looks like heathdata.org downgraded their death projections again. It's at 60,415 now. It was at 82,000 on Monday and 90,000 last week.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
Probably just the first wave of deaths. IMO.
It assumes no change in social distancing until August. That is not going to happen. I'm a 100% advocate in the measures we're taking now and wish we had done them sooner, and I have zero hope that we maintain this through the entire summer.
T0he moment those are relaxed then this models projections go right out the window. Thats not to say its not useful because it can tell us a lot about where we are currently, but it does nothing to model secondary waves because it assumes we stay this way until the outbreak is over.
This is the first thing you see when you click the link.
"COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through MAY 2020".
Double post.
SirLurksALot said:MBAR said:Not probably, it 100% is only their projection for a single wave. Everyone who is using that model to understand the current situation needs to know that it has a lot of caveats that will not be met.Red Fishing Ag93 said:SirLurksALot said:
Looks like heathdata.org downgraded their death projections again. It's at 60,415 now. It was at 82,000 on Monday and 90,000 last week.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
Probably just the first wave of deaths. IMO.
It assumes no change in social distancing until August. That is not going to happen. I'm a 100% advocate in the measures we're taking now and wish we had done them sooner, and I have zero hope that we maintain this through the entire summer.
T0he moment those are relaxed then this models projections go right out the window. Thats not to say its not useful because it can tell us a lot about where we are currently, but it does nothing to model secondary waves because it assumes we stay this way until the outbreak is over.
This is the first thing you see when you click the link.
COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through MAY 2020.
It appears the most recent update also updated this. It updated it from August to June (or the end of May, if you will). That still 2 more months, which is not going to happen in most places.
I mean, we currently don't have stay at home orders everywhere, so to assume that they will remain in place everywhere through the end of May is also wrong. Like I said, this doesn't mean the model is bad or useless, it means that you need to view it in the appropriate manner. It's a projection for the next couple of months under ideal circumstances.
MBAR said:SirLurksALot said:MBAR said:Not probably, it 100% is only their projection for a single wave. Everyone who is using that model to understand the current situation needs to know that it has a lot of caveats that will not be met.Red Fishing Ag93 said:SirLurksALot said:
Looks like heathdata.org downgraded their death projections again. It's at 60,415 now. It was at 82,000 on Monday and 90,000 last week.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
Probably just the first wave of deaths. IMO.
It assumes no change in social distancing until August. That is not going to happen. I'm a 100% advocate in the measures we're taking now and wish we had done them sooner, and I have zero hope that we maintain this through the entire summer.
T0he moment those are relaxed then this models projections go right out the window. Thats not to say its not useful because it can tell us a lot about where we are currently, but it does nothing to model secondary waves because it assumes we stay this way until the outbreak is over.
This is the first thing you see when you click the link.
COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through MAY 2020.
It appears the most recent update also updated this. It updated it from August to June (or the end of May, if you will). That still 2 more months, which is not going to happen in most places.
I mean, we currently don't have stay at home orders everywhere, so to assume that they will remain in place everywhere through the end of May is also wrong. Like I said, this doesn't mean the model is bad or useless, it means that you need to view it in the appropriate manner. It's a projection for the next couple of months under ideal circumstances.
I believe This model factors in actions states are taking right now. If a state isn't doing shelter in place that factors into the projections for that state.
Also Stay at home is not the same as social distancing. It is almost a certainty that even if we do open up on May 1 ( I'm skeptical this actually happens) there will still be some social distancing measures still in effect.
Oh for sure when we open up there will be measures, but the model doesn't account for that. That's why I'm saying that if you look at those projections, just understand what you're looking at. The FAQ does mention they are currently developing a framework to make projections in this vein as well, but they aren't ready. We need more modeling so this is good. The more diverse set of models we have the better we'll be able to understand what actions we need to take to make sure we're safe.SirLurksALot said:MBAR said:SirLurksALot said:MBAR said:Not probably, it 100% is only their projection for a single wave. Everyone who is using that model to understand the current situation needs to know that it has a lot of caveats that will not be met.Red Fishing Ag93 said:SirLurksALot said:
Looks like heathdata.org downgraded their death projections again. It's at 60,415 now. It was at 82,000 on Monday and 90,000 last week.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
Probably just the first wave of deaths. IMO.
It assumes no change in social distancing until August. That is not going to happen. I'm a 100% advocate in the measures we're taking now and wish we had done them sooner, and I have zero hope that we maintain this through the entire summer.
T0he moment those are relaxed then this models projections go right out the window. Thats not to say its not useful because it can tell us a lot about where we are currently, but it does nothing to model secondary waves because it assumes we stay this way until the outbreak is over.
This is the first thing you see when you click the link.
COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through MAY 2020.
It appears the most recent update also updated this. It updated it from August to June (or the end of May, if you will). That still 2 more months, which is not going to happen in most places.
I mean, we currently don't have stay at home orders everywhere, so to assume that they will remain in place everywhere through the end of May is also wrong. Like I said, this doesn't mean the model is bad or useless, it means that you need to view it in the appropriate manner. It's a projection for the next couple of months under ideal circumstances.
I believe This model factors in actions states are taking right now. If a state isn't doing shelter in place that factors into the projections for that state.
Also Stay at home is not the same as social distancing. It is almost a certainty that even if we do open up on May 1 ( I'm skeptical this actually happens) there will still be some social distancing measures still in effect.
They run their projections through August 4th, but only assume social distancing until June. So they already have two months factored into the projections without any social distancing. Now, they could very well be wrong about the impacts without social distancing, but that remains to be seen.
Also they didn't just update the model to account for social distancing only going through May. It has been that way for at least the last two weeks.
Also they didn't just update the model to account for social distancing only going through May. It has been that way for at least the last two weeks.
I imagine there is no way to even remotely model what happens when social distancing ends so that makes sense
Featured Stories
See All
Any direct path to Atlanta for Texas A&M goes through South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5:17
19h ago
3.3k
1:49
4h ago
1.3k
2025 Texas A&M DT commit DJ Sanders talks district title, Kyle Field
by Ryan Brauninger
113:02
4h ago
1.0k
42:43
1d ago
5.6k