3 ms·

Third, we build a statistical model that predicts the weekly ratio of total COVID-19 deaths to reported COVID-19 deaths based on covariates and spatial effects.

Third, we build a statistical model that predicts the weekly ratio of total COVID-19 deaths to reported COVID-19 deaths based on covariates and spatial effects. Given how disastrously wrong most modeling/forecasting(1) has been during this pandemic color me a little bit skeptical that their model is somehow better. Models give wide latitude to fiddle with parameters. (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/

williamsmj 5y ago
This group in particular has a terrible record: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronavirus-modeling-us-deaths-ihme-pandemic https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronav...
dadjoker 5y ago
Color me completely distrusting. Between the IHME and Neil Ferguson (aka The Master of Disaster because of how horrifically wrong his models have been) models in the UK, they haven't even been close to reality. The IHME was even called out last year by other data modelers at one point for how poorly done their models were.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  This is a slight re-write of history, by my recollection. Neil Ferguson's earliest models were used to justify no action/herd immunity as the UK's initial strategy. I recall (but can't find) the Imperial College scientists saying they didn't fully consider any other option at first, because they understood that it would be politically unpalatable.
  - thinkingemote 5y ago
    Just goes to show how faulty our recollection is that it changes what we think was history. Best to actually look it up. (hint: you won't find the 'do nothing for herd immunity' as a stategy, but you will find many newspaper articles speculating about it based on out of context quotes) History gives a better record than our impressions from the news of the sensational at the time and our faulty memories.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      > you won't find the 'do nothing for herd immunity' as a stategy Sure, I will. Here's the original Imperial College Report 9 to which I am referring: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/m... which discusses 'mitigation' and 'suppression' as two possible strategies, in March 2020. The UK government took this report as an endorsement for 'mitigation', which it discusses in more detail, even though the report says "For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option." Mitigation is quoted as meaning "reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection" - I'll admit I extrapolated this into "do nothing". There are then plenty of articles discussing this, e.g.: https://henrytapper.com/2020/04/04/suppression-vs-mitigation-whats-this-all-about/ https://henrytapper.com/2020/04/04/suppression-vs-mitigation...

williamsmj 5y ago

This group in particular has a terrible record: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronavirus-modeling-us-deaths-ihme-pandemic https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/5/2/21241261/coronav...

dadjoker 5y ago

Color me completely distrusting. Between the IHME and Neil Ferguson (aka The Master of Disaster because of how horrifically wrong his models have been) models in the UK, they haven't even been close to reality. The IHME was even called out last year by other data modelers at one point for how poorly done their models were.

teachingassist 5y ago
This is a slight re-write of history, by my recollection. Neil Ferguson's earliest models were used to justify no action/herd immunity as the UK's initial strategy. I recall (but can't find) the Imperial College scientists saying they didn't fully consider any other option at first, because they understood that it would be politically unpalatable.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  Just goes to show how faulty our recollection is that it changes what we think was history. Best to actually look it up. (hint: you won't find the 'do nothing for herd immunity' as a stategy, but you will find many newspaper articles speculating about it based on out of context quotes) History gives a better record than our impressions from the news of the sensational at the time and our faulty memories.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > you won't find the 'do nothing for herd immunity' as a stategy Sure, I will. Here's the original Imperial College Report 9 to which I am referring: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/m... which discusses 'mitigation' and 'suppression' as two possible strategies, in March 2020. The UK government took this report as an endorsement for 'mitigation', which it discusses in more detail, even though the report says "For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option." Mitigation is quoted as meaning "reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection" - I'll admit I extrapolated this into "do nothing". There are then plenty of articles discussing this, e.g.: https://henrytapper.com/2020/04/04/suppression-vs-mitigation-whats-this-all-about/ https://henrytapper.com/2020/04/04/suppression-vs-mitigation...