4 ms·

> Our lockdowns were a disaster and "opening back up" is going to cause an explosion in cases. That was in fact the prediction for Georgia, see for example th

> Our lockdowns were a disaster and "opening back up" is going to cause an explosion in cases. That was in fact the prediction for Georgia, see for example the expert predictions here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/infectious-disease-experts-expect-a-surge-in-georgias-covid-19-cases/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/infectious-disease-expe... Of course it turns out not to have actually happened: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/georgia-coronavirus-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/georgia-coronavi...

GrinningFool 6y ago
As far as I saw from the start, predictions for Georgia were that they'd start to see an uptick in about 3-5 weeks. I think that window starts this week.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  You can read the article I linked, the predictions were for the week ending May 16.
  - GrinningFool 6y ago
    It has largely been within that consensus range at the low end: "579 and 2,292"; but that's splitting hairs, since the low end is not an increasing count. With that said, my own reading prior to this point has suggested we'd see the uptick starting in this coming week, through the next two weeks.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Georgia is now backfilling based on date of first symptoms, rather than date of diagnosis. Numbers as far back as a week or two week could still increase.
Spellman 6y ago
That's not completely true. The panel of experts estimated about 1k/day during the week ending May 16, ranging 579/day to 2292/day. And while so far there aren't that many cases reported today, the data isn't complete due to the lag in testing results. In fact the lag is for 14 days. So we're still in a wait and see point.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  The 579/day estimate is the low end of the 90% confidence interval. You can use the 7-day rolling average the NYT provides to eliminate the swings from reporting variance. Of course, the apocalypse will always be two weeks away.
  - travisporter 6y ago
    Rolling averages introduce a lag.
  - Spellman 6y ago
    90% confidence means anything within that range would validate their model. And even if their model was perfect, 10% chance the real value would fall outside that range. So as long as the real number (which we will will have in 2 weeks once the rolling average and final tallies are in) then, well, they're still right.

GrinningFool 6y ago

As far as I saw from the start, predictions for Georgia were that they'd start to see an uptick in about 3-5 weeks. I think that window starts this week.

jdminhbg 6y ago
You can read the article I linked, the predictions were for the week ending May 16.
- GrinningFool 6y ago
  It has largely been within that consensus range at the low end: "579 and 2,292"; but that's splitting hairs, since the low end is not an increasing count. With that said, my own reading prior to this point has suggested we'd see the uptick starting in this coming week, through the next two weeks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Izkata 6y ago
  Georgia is now backfilling based on date of first symptoms, rather than date of diagnosis. Numbers as far back as a week or two week could still increase.

Spellman 6y ago

That's not completely true. The panel of experts estimated about 1k/day during the week ending May 16, ranging 579/day to 2292/day. And while so far there aren't that many cases reported today, the data isn't complete due to the lag in testing results. In fact the lag is for 14 days. So we're still in a wait and see point.

jdminhbg 6y ago
The 579/day estimate is the low end of the 90% confidence interval. You can use the 7-day rolling average the NYT provides to eliminate the swings from reporting variance. Of course, the apocalypse will always be two weeks away.
- travisporter 6y ago
  Rolling averages introduce a lag.
- Spellman 6y ago
  90% confidence means anything within that range would validate their model. And even if their model was perfect, 10% chance the real value would fall outside that range. So as long as the real number (which we will will have in 2 weeks once the rolling average and final tallies are in) then, well, they're still right.