• Member Statistics

    16,020
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    StormfanaticInd
    Newest Member
    StormfanaticInd
    Joined
mappy

COVID-19 Talk

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.