3 ms·
I stand corrected regarding their prediction. I don't understand much Swedish, so I could not follow their model. But it appears to rely on an extrapolation of
by microtherion 7y ago
I stand corrected regarding their prediction. I don't understand much Swedish, so I could not follow their model. But it appears to rely on an extrapolation of data from late March. Do they include any cross-validation of the model with current data?
April 9, 10, 11: 200, 148, 240 new cases were reported in Stockholm
April 21, 22, 23: 163, 289, 281 new cases were reported (and might still be subject to upward revision)
As we both agree, reported cases is a fairly uncertain metric, but I don't see a peak on April 10. Do you?
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa?fbclid=IwAR0cwMTc67meGq7bDJ63eph18UZ4LqgsOTYJK-msWNHCfp8aEp5WWQJaqeM https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6...
- oxymoron 7y agoThe model is calibrated based on the study from late march, which randomly sampled 700 individuals in Stockholm. From that they can infer the number of infected people at that point in time. They use two separate variables to track unknown infections and known infections (hospitalizations), so from that study and hospital data they get a baseline. They can then verify how the model holds up for the group of hospitalized cases. There are charts towards the end of the paper which shows the real data plotted compared to the predictions, with confidence intervalls. The data is obviously very noisy, but it seems to track reasonably well, and is expected to taper of only slowly. The expected decline is not by any means drastic.