3 ms·
I've read it, but (perhaps I'm wrong, I'm a biologist turned to computational biology so not expert on epidemiological models ;) didn't the author (and similar
by lbeltrame 6y ago
I've read it, but (perhaps I'm wrong, I'm a biologist turned to computational biology so not expert on epidemiological models ;) didn't the author (and similar Stats News post) argue that it is too optimistic, IOW the opposite that you were arguing in the post?
I don't mean this is as a criticism, but it struck me as some dissonance as I was reading.
I've also heard that there might be criticism to other models like the Imperial College one, but so far I've never found anything with some substance.
- ryankemper 6y agoGood question. I should have proactively addressed that: The IMHE model, after re-estimating, _was_ too optimistic. My argument does not hinge on the IMHE model being too pessimistic; but rather simply that the IMHE model is basically useless and thus we shouldn't base policy on it. I expect us to have well over 100,000 COVID-19 deaths - indeed probably 3x that but I admit I haven't sat down and done the age-bracket-weighted mortality napkin math. (Basically, take each age group's IFR and multiply by that age group's population in the US, after multiplying by some constant <1 which represnts the sum of herd immunity threshold plus overshoot) So basically, I think that COVID-19 mortality is going to be way worse than the model predicts, but given the way I view the cost of lockdown, etc, I still think the approach I am proposing is superior to locking down. Does that make sense?
- lbeltrame 6y agoYes, I understand your point now. Thanks a lot for clarifying.