7 ms·

At the risk of getting hellbanned for sneaking in reposts of my largely ignored posts from yesterday, the projections for our current situation can be found onl

by dhimes 7y ago

At the risk of getting hellbanned for sneaking in reposts of my largely ignored posts from yesterday, the projections for our current situation can be found online here: http://covid19.healthdata.org/projections http://covid19.healthdata.org/projections paper here: http://www.healthdata.org/research-article/forecasting-covid-19-impact-hospital-bed-days-icu-days-ventilator-days-and-deaths http://www.healthdata.org/research-article/forecasting-covid...

danielharan 7y ago
So, you're just assuming other jurisdictions are going to have a curve that looks like Wuhan's? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farr#Law_of_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farr#Law_of_epidemics
- acqq 7y ago
  The study was made by "The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)" launched in 2007 "with the goal of providing an impartial, evidence-based picture of global health trends to inform the work of policymakers, researchers, and funders. Main supporters are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the state of Washington." Edit: once I read the claim "That methodology looks extremely dodgy" or "doesn't make it right" (in the answer below) I'd expect some specific information which would support that claim. Especially when the same person writes "you" to the poster posting the link to the study of an independent institute residing at the University of Washington.
  - danielharan 7y ago
    That really doesn't answer the question. That methodology looks extremely dodgy, and merely having funding from the Gates foundation doesn't make it right.
    - dhimes 7y ago
      It's curve-fitting. By real epidemiologists. It's not just based on Wuhan, but based on knowledge of how things like this spread. Wuhan fit the model, so there's hope. But it's just curve-fitting. And it depends on certain things, like people being smart. You get your parameters from what you observe. If you have a better way to do it please share.
      - danielharan 7y ago
        They're getting flack from other epidemiologists for doing just that. Curve-fitting the AIDS epidemic suggested it would peter out in 1995. We only have the same curves if we put in the same restrictions as Wuhan, or get R down as much. Yet we still have megachurches holding services. And politicians are using these as worst-case scenarios already, which will make them complacent about the urgent need for more ventilators, masks and PPE supplies.
        dhimes 7y ago
        They answer all that in the paper. It's not predicting behavior of people- we can still do stupid things and make this a lot worse. But if we behave and practice social distancing and don't do stupid things, this is the estimate we have today (or a couple of days ago) of the timeline. If I were a leader of the United States, I would challenge the population to beat these numbers.
        mmmrtl 7y ago
        How could the US possibly beat these numbers? Do you imagine shutdowns more severe than Wuhan happening here?
        acqq 7y ago
        More worrying is that a lockdown that started recently will not be reflected immediately in any statistics -- it takes time for that. If I understand correctly, the lockdown of Wuhan started as they reported only 23 deaths and was more drastic than any other. The growth in cases however continued afterwards for around a month.
noelsusman 7y ago
Interesting, they're projecting the peak much earlier than other projections I've seen, especially considering they're factoring in social distancing measures. I'm not sure I buy it. For example, North Carolina currently has 91 patients in the hospital for COVID19. The model projected 300-1000 hospitalizations by this point, suggesting that their model is over-aggressive with the ramp-up time. The models I've seen with the peak in April have been the truly apocalyptic scenarios. Most models that incorporate social distancing push the peak out into May and beyond.
- acqq 7y ago
  > North Carolina currently has 91 patients in the hospital for COVID19. The model projected 300-1000 hospitalizations by this point The doubling time is in many places only 3 days. From my point of view the model which is off by only a week could still be quite correct.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    The data backs you up. The model projected 437 deaths for March 28th (tolerance bands of 380 - 508). According to [0], the deaths were actually 264. But the model predicted around that only two days prior ( 273 deaths on March 26th). I’d say it’s pretty accurate - off only by a couple days. [0] - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
    - dhimes 7y ago
      Considering it was probably two doubling times (I've been seeing 2.77 days or so as well from the jhu site) to write the paper and get it out- working extremely hard.

by dhimes 7y ago

danielharan 7y ago

So, you're just assuming other jurisdictions are going to have a curve that looks like Wuhan's? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farr#Law_of_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Farr#Law_of_epidemics

acqq 7y ago
The study was made by "The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)" launched in 2007 "with the goal of providing an impartial, evidence-based picture of global health trends to inform the work of policymakers, researchers, and funders. Main supporters are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the state of Washington." Edit: once I read the claim "That methodology looks extremely dodgy" or "doesn't make it right" (in the answer below) I'd expect some specific information which would support that claim. Especially when the same person writes "you" to the poster posting the link to the study of an independent institute residing at the University of Washington.
- danielharan 7y ago
  That really doesn't answer the question. That methodology looks extremely dodgy, and merely having funding from the Gates foundation doesn't make it right.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    It's curve-fitting. By real epidemiologists. It's not just based on Wuhan, but based on knowledge of how things like this spread. Wuhan fit the model, so there's hope. But it's just curve-fitting. And it depends on certain things, like people being smart. You get your parameters from what you observe. If you have a better way to do it please share.
    - danielharan 7y ago
      They're getting flack from other epidemiologists for doing just that. Curve-fitting the AIDS epidemic suggested it would peter out in 1995. We only have the same curves if we put in the same restrictions as Wuhan, or get R down as much. Yet we still have megachurches holding services. And politicians are using these as worst-case scenarios already, which will make them complacent about the urgent need for more ventilators, masks and PPE supplies.
      - dhimes 7y ago
        They answer all that in the paper. It's not predicting behavior of people- we can still do stupid things and make this a lot worse. But if we behave and practice social distancing and don't do stupid things, this is the estimate we have today (or a couple of days ago) of the timeline. If I were a leader of the United States, I would challenge the population to beat these numbers.
        mmmrtl 7y ago
        How could the US possibly beat these numbers? Do you imagine shutdowns more severe than Wuhan happening here?
        acqq 7y ago
        More worrying is that a lockdown that started recently will not be reflected immediately in any statistics -- it takes time for that. If I understand correctly, the lockdown of Wuhan started as they reported only 23 deaths and was more drastic than any other. The growth in cases however continued afterwards for around a month.

noelsusman 7y ago

Interesting, they're projecting the peak much earlier than other projections I've seen, especially considering they're factoring in social distancing measures. I'm not sure I buy it. For example, North Carolina currently has 91 patients in the hospital for COVID19. The model projected 300-1000 hospitalizations by this point, suggesting that their model is over-aggressive with the ramp-up time. The models I've seen with the peak in April have been the truly apocalyptic scenarios. Most models that incorporate social distancing push the peak out into May and beyond.

acqq 7y ago
> North Carolina currently has 91 patients in the hospital for COVID19. The model projected 300-1000 hospitalizations by this point The doubling time is in many places only 3 days. From my point of view the model which is off by only a week could still be quite correct.
- MR4D 7y ago
  The data backs you up. The model projected 437 deaths for March 28th (tolerance bands of 380 - 508). According to [0], the deaths were actually 264. But the model predicted around that only two days prior ( 273 deaths on March 26th). I’d say it’s pretty accurate - off only by a couple days. [0] - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
  - dhimes 7y ago
    Considering it was probably two doubling times (I've been seeing 2.77 days or so as well from the jhu site) to write the paper and get it out- working extremely hard.