On projections of coronavirus deaths, government uses unreliable model

D

dukkha

Verified User
EVIXF9YXsAAznm6



the day after the first revision — which was dramatic,pales in comparison to Wednesday’s reassessment.
This was not immediately apparent because the latest revision (Wednesday) did not include a side-by-side comparison, as did the Sunday revision.


Perusal of the new data, however, is staggering, as is what it says about government predictions we were hearing just days ago about the likelihood of 100,000 deaths, with as many as 240,000 a real possibility.

As I noted in my last post on this subject, by Sunday the projection of likely deaths had plunged 12 percent in just three days, 93,531 to 81,766. Understand, this projection is drawn from a range; on April 2, IHME was telling us cumulative COVID-19 deaths could reach as high as approximately 178,000. The upper range was also reduced on Sunday to about 136,000.


On Wednesday, the projected cumulative deaths were slashed to 60,145 (with the upper range again cut, to about 126,000). That is, in less than a week, the model proved to be off by more than 33 percent.

My use of the term “off” is intentional. There is no shortage of government spin, regurgitated by media commentators, assuring us that the drastic reductions in the projections over just a few days powerfully illustrate how well social distancing and the substantial shuttering of the economy is working.


Nonsense. As Alex Berenson points out on Twitter, with an accompanying screenshot data updated by IHME on April 1, the original April 2 model was explicitly “assuming full social distancing through May 2020.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/and...virus-deaths-government-uses-unreliable-model
 
Here we are. Three weeks (at least, depending upon where you are) into what amounts to house arrest.

Stores are told what products they can and cannot sell.

A father has been handcuffed and arrested for playing with his daughter in a deserted park.

People are being fined for walking on vacant beaches.

Businesses have been shuttered.

The economy has been trashed. Our concept of civil liberties and the permissible use of the state’s police power have been irrevocably moved in the direction of totalitarianism.

There is literally no end in sight.

So it is fair to ask how we got here.

In a word: models.

The Wuhan virus frenzy really began in earnest when Neil Ferguson published the results of a simulation he’d run on the public health impact of the virus.

In it he predicted that some 2 million Americans would die from the virus.

The impact of this paper can’t be overstated. The British and Dutch governments were stampeded from pursuing what amounted to a “ride it out” strategy (which, in my view, was the only strategy even vaguely related to either science or common sense) into throwing the emergency brake on economic activity.

Once one model was accepted, other proliferated.

Perhaps the most notable one has been that from the Institution for Health Metrics and Evaluation. This one, like the non-factual Imperial College model, has produced Doomsday results that led to panicked governors believing they had to ‘do something’ by shutting down most economic activity.

These models have one unifying feature.

They were all wildly and spectacularly implausible and are all being proven wildly and spectacularly wrong on a daily basis.

They are also all being promoted by a DEMOCRAT-run website (https://covidactnow.org/) that bombards state, county and local governments with scary "data" on a daily basis to prolong the panic for political purposes.
 
All that was required for the discrepancy was for there to be an incorrect assumption made in the effect of social distancing. In this case it appears they underestimated the effect.

And that is a good thing - fewer will die.

I certainly hope you are not arguing that it should not have been done.

All the curves are finally showing the hoped for flattening.

There would be more people dying without social distancing.

I hope nobody is arguing that the economy is worth more than those people.
 
dukkha said:
EVIXF9YXsAAznm6



the day after the first revision — which was dramatic,pales in comparison to Wednesday’s reassessment.
This was not immediately apparent because the latest revision (Wednesday) did not include a side-by-side comparison, as did the Sunday revision.


Perusal of the new data, however, is staggering, as is what it says about government predictions we were hearing just days ago about the likelihood of 100,000 deaths, with as many as 240,000 a real possibility.

As I noted in my last post on this subject, by Sunday the projection of likely deaths had plunged 12 percent in just three days, 93,531 to 81,766. Understand, this projection is drawn from a range; on April 2, IHME was telling us cumulative COVID-19 deaths could reach as high as approximately 178,000. The upper range was also reduced on Sunday to about 136,000.


On Wednesday, the projected cumulative deaths were slashed to 60,145 (with the upper range again cut, to about 126,000). That is, in less than a week, the model proved to be off by more than 33 percent.

My use of the term “off” is intentional. There is no shortage of government spin, regurgitated by media commentators, assuring us that the drastic reductions in the projections over just a few days powerfully illustrate how well social distancing and the substantial shuttering of the economy is working.


Nonsense. As Alex Berenson points out on Twitter, with an accompanying screenshot data updated by IHME on April 1, the original April 2 model was explicitly “assuming full social distancing through May 2020.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/and...virus-deaths-government-uses-unreliable-model
Click to expand...

You are linking to a fox opinion article.

Where is the link to the actual University of Washington study?
 
dukkha said:
EVIXF9YXsAAznm6



the day after the first revision — which was dramatic,pales in comparison to Wednesday’s reassessment.
This was not immediately apparent because the latest revision (Wednesday) did not include a side-by-side comparison, as did the Sunday revision.


Perusal of the new data, however, is staggering, as is what it says about government predictions we were hearing just days ago about the likelihood of 100,000 deaths, with as many as 240,000 a real possibility.

As I noted in my last post on this subject, by Sunday the projection of likely deaths had plunged 12 percent in just three days, 93,531 to 81,766. Understand, this projection is drawn from a range; on April 2, IHME was telling us cumulative COVID-19 deaths could reach as high as approximately 178,000. The upper range was also reduced on Sunday to about 136,000.


On Wednesday, the projected cumulative deaths were slashed to 60,145 (with the upper range again cut, to about 126,000). That is, in less than a week, the model proved to be off by more than 33 percent.

My use of the term “off” is intentional. There is no shortage of government spin, regurgitated by media commentators, assuring us that the drastic reductions in the projections over just a few days powerfully illustrate how well social distancing and the substantial shuttering of the economy is working.


Nonsense. As Alex Berenson points out on Twitter, with an accompanying screenshot data updated by IHME on April 1, the original April 2 model was explicitly “assuming full social distancing through May 2020.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/and...virus-deaths-government-uses-unreliable-model
Click to expand...

There are always agendas when we have crisis.

Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
 
Legion said:
Here we are. Three weeks (at least, depending upon where you are) into what amounts to house arrest.

Stores are told what products they can and cannot sell.

A father has been handcuffed and arrested for playing with his daughter in a deserted park.

People are being fined for walking on vacant beaches.

Businesses have been shuttered.

The economy has been trashed. Our concept of civil liberties and the permissible use of the state’s police power have been irrevocably moved in the direction of totalitarianism.

There is literally no end in sight.

So it is fair to ask how we got here.

In a word: models.

The Wuhan virus frenzy really began in earnest when Neil Ferguson published the results of a simulation he’d run on the public health impact of the virus.

In it he predicted that some 2 million Americans would die from the virus.

The impact of this paper can’t be overstated. The British and Dutch governments were stampeded from pursuing what amounted to a “ride it out” strategy (which, in my view, was the only strategy even vaguely related to either science or common sense) into throwing the emergency brake on economic activity.

Once one model was accepted, other proliferated.

Perhaps the most notable one has been that from the Institution for Health Metrics and Evaluation. This one, like the non-factual Imperial College model, has produced Doomsday results that led to panicked governors believing they had to ‘do something’ by shutting down most economic activity.

These models have one unifying feature.

They were all wildly and spectacularly implausible and are all being proven wildly and spectacularly wrong on a daily basis.

They are also all being promoted by a DEMOCRAT-run website (https://covidactnow.org/) that bombards state, county and local governments with scary "data" on a daily basis to prolong the panic for political purposes.
Click to expand...

We should have used the models China was using to report their numbers. ;)
 
Cypress said:
You are linking to a fox opinion article.

Where is the link to the actual University of Washington study?
Click to expand...

The researchers are saying that the new projections are based on the fact social distancing is working (thanks Democratic governors and mayors). The new projections also assume aggressive social distancing mandates stay in place through the end of May.

There are conservatives on this forum who either did not want mandated social distancing or wanted to end the mandates prematurely
 
Clueless said:
The researchers are saying that the new projections are based on the fact social distancing is working. The new projections also assume aggressive social distancing mandates stay in place through the end of May. There are conservatives on this forum who either did not want mandated social distancing or wanted to end the mandates prematurely
Click to expand...

Are these the same "researchers" who fed you fake projections, sex pest?

I guess you want to start stalking women in public again, don't you?
 
This is really a guilt thing.

A blame assignment episode.

We are trying to assign the blame for the trashed economy on social distancing, suggesting it should not have been done.

No, that's wrong.

The reality is that the president waited too long to take correct action.

The economic shut down should have been handled gradually with careful leadership, not suddenly a big surprise on Friday the 13th, that all of a sudden it is some kind of emergency. That was BS. The virus crept upon us slowly. We had plenty of warning and time to prepare. There was nothing sudden about it.

The correct way to have done it would have been measured steps to have a plan for an organized shut-down so that nobody loses their income. The government steps in and begins making payments to keep people on payrolls and employers viable. As the government assumes this role, workers are sent home. This could have been done before the disease spread so widely. If only we had really good testing in place early on like South Korea and Taiwan did. Then we would have known. And we set up the new government payments to businesses to keep workers on the payroll as they are sent home, then nobody has to lose their job, lose their health insurance, sector after sector, all guided and carefully planned to systematically begin social distancing. The stock market would have responded in a more measured way. Sure, it would drop, but there did not have to be a ten thousand point crash.

But none of that was done, so there has to be blaming and responsibility-shifting.
 
Cypress said:
The researchers are saying that the new projections are based on the fact social distancing is working (thanks Democratic governors and mayors). The new projections also assume aggressive social distancing mandates stay in place through the end of May.

There are conservatives on this forum who either did not want mandated social distancing or wanted to end the mandates prematurely
Click to expand...

:lolup: Loon responding to himself. :laugh:
 
Truth Detector said:
There are always agendas when we have crisis.

Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Click to expand...

He was Obama's hatchet man, wasn't he?

Isn't his brother the National Institutes of Health bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel?
 
PoliTalker said:
All that was required for the discrepancy was for there to be an incorrect assumption made in the effect of social distancing. In this case it appears they underestimated the effect.

And that is a good thing - fewer will die.

I certainly hope you are not arguing that it should not have been done.

All the curves are finally showing the hoped for flattening.

There would be more people dying without social distancing.

I hope nobody is arguing that the economy is worth more than those people.
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up you miserable hag, seriously just kill yourself!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top